ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Consolidated Fund Act 2002
	Office of Communications Act 2002

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Mersey Tunnels Bill (By  Order)

Order for Second Reading read.
	To be read a Second time on Tuesday 26 March.

Oral Answers to Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Minimum Income Guarantee

Jim Sheridan: How many pensioners in Scotland will benefit from the increases in the minimum income guarantee in April.

Rachel Squire: How many pensioners in Scotland will benefit from the increases in the basic state pension in April.

George Foulkes: In Scotland, around 181,000 claimants will benefit from the increase in the minimum income guarantee in April and around 900,000 people will benefit from the increase in the basic state pension. Once again, a Labour Government are delivering for Scotland's pensioners.

Jim Sheridan: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. No doubt, he will be aware that many of my constituents receive the minimum income guarantee, which provides a crucial safety net, but what worries me—this is the substance of my question—is that many people may not be aware of it. The minimum income guarantee is no accident. It is a direct result of sound economic policy and the Government's social responsibility, and it is coupled with the national minimum wage and the principled politics of socialism. I came into politics to deliver those kinds of benefits to our people. However, I emphasise that there are a number of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech, but perhaps the Minister can answer from the information that he has already.

George Foulkes: But it was a good speech, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. Friend knows, the minimum income guarantee will increase in line with earnings, and that is welcome for the poorest pensioners. We have also, thankfully, made it easier to claim the minimum income guarantee. The form has been reduced from 40 pages to 10, and we have introduced a new telephone claim service, all of which has made it easier for pensioners to claim the minimum income guarantee.

Rachel Squire: I certainly welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, and so will 10,760 pensioners in Dunfermline and west Fife when they receive their increases. Does he agree that a sizeable group of pensioners, who have worked hard all their lives and put a little aside in savings or extra pension, still lose out, especially as their increases go to pay extra council tax, water charges or fuel bills? Will he join me in saying that we must all work together to ensure that the pension credit, when it is introduced next year, delivers to those pensioners and provides decency and dignity in their retirement?

George Foulkes: My hon. Friend, like myself, represents a mining area and knows that many miners and widows on very small additional pensions are affected in the way that she describes. The pension credit will benefit about half the pensioner households in Scotland. Pensioner couples with incomes below £200 and single pensioners with incomes below £135 a week will benefit, and it will reward those with savings on low and modest incomes. We are the first Government ever to reward thrift in pensioners.

Peter Duncan: Has the Minister found time in his busy diary to read the recent MORI survey that reported that only slightly more than one in four people in Scotland were content with the Government's attempt to tackle pensioner poverty? Bearing in mind his links with Age Concern Scotland, which co-sponsored that survey, what is he doing to make representations to the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that future Government policy tallies with Age Concern Scotland's requests?

George Foulkes: I also made time in my busy diary to vote against foxhunting last night, and the hon. Gentleman might have managed to do so, because, after all, he claims to be a Unionist. He is right to suggest that I used to work for Age Concern Scotland, and I know that pensioners in Scotland now feel better than they have ever done under any previous Government, which was shown very strongly when they voted in the last election to return a Labour Government with a majority almost as large as in 1997.

Archy Kirkwood: Will the Minister confirm that, on 21 January 2050, he will be 108 years old? Would he care to contemplate PricewaterhouseCoopers' recent estimate that, in that year, the basic state pension will be worth 6 per cent. of average earnings? Does he think that a weekly income of less than £30 a week at today's prices is an adequate foundation on which to build future retirement incomes?

George Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman will know that, on 4 July this year, I will have been married for 33 years—he was there in a very particular role on that occasion. He will know that with the basic pension, minimum income guarantee, winter fuel allowance and a range of other measures, and with the way in which we are tackling the problem of private pensions, the Government are taking every possible action to ensure that pensioners, including members of the Government who might soon be pensioners, are well off in future. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has great concern about the implications for company pensions, about recent announcements, and especially FRS17, which I know will worry my hon. Friend. He has asked the Accounting Standards Board, which is independent of government, to consider these matters, which may be out of line with international accounting standards.

David Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of increasing pensioners' income has been the introduction of the £200 winter fuel allowance? Will he take steps to ensure that any pensioner aged over 60 in Scotland who has not yet claimed this year's allowance will be advised that he or she must do so before the end of March? We must ensure that everyone in Scotland benefits from this generous allowance.

George Foulkes: My hon. Friend is right. I ask everyone—colleagues, Opposition Members and the media—to publicise the fact that men who are over 60 and eligible for the allowance can still claim up to the end of this month—[Interruption.] No, I am not eligible, but almost.
	Winter fuel payments are paid in addition to the cold weather payments. The Scottish National party wants weekly payments, which we already provide. Last year, 945,000 Scots received cold weather payments. In addition, they received £200 in winter fuel allowance, at a cost of £8 million. They would receive much less in an independent Scotland.

John Thurso: Would it surprise the Minister to know that at a recent gathering of pensioners in my constituency, 14 of the 22 present were not receiving their proper benefits or credits? Given that those numbers are probably replicated throughout Scotland, is it not time that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ditched his complicated credits and gave pensioners the decent pension that they deserve?

George Foulkes: They are getting a decent pension and much more besides. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that on board and let his constituents know. Members have a responsibility to spread this information. They must ensure that it appears in their local newspapers and make it known in their surgeries. They must talk to Age Concern groups and pensioner groups. Labour Members are doing that and Opposition Members should do it as well.

Jimmy Wray: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the Government's policy to eradicate poverty, especially pensioner poverty? I am concerned that the latest statistic shows that four of the 10 worst areas in the United Kingdom are in Glasgow. Could we make an extra effort through the UK Government and the Scottish Parliament to do something about the problem?

George Foulkes: We are the first Government—the Scottish Executive support this—to commit ourselves to ending pensioner poverty and child poverty. It will take some time to achieve that after 18 years of Tory Government, but we are determined to do it.

Jacqui Lait: I am sure that we will not forget, but in case we do, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his wife on their wedding anniversary in July? Given the Government's ambition of increasing substantially the number of people who can to rely on private pensions, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of retired people on means-tested benefits will increase from 40 per cent. to nearly 60 per cent. next year? How does he plan to encourage people to save for their retirement when the Government take £5 billion a year from pension funds and will not reform annuities? Is not the pension system in a crisis of the Government's own making?

George Foulkes: No. We keep being told about the £5 billion a year that is taken from pension funds and advance corporation tax. There were the exact equivalents in the reductions of ACT. We do not hear about that. The main problem with pension funds recently has been the fall in the stock market and FRS17, which I mentioned earlier. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has taken action on FRS17. He has also set up the Pickering review, which will report by June or July 2002. We are therefore taking swift and effective action. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to sort out the mess of the mis-selling of private pensions created by the previous Government.

Europe

Mark Lazarowicz: What steps she will be taking to promote Scotland's interests in the future of Europe debate.

Helen Liddell: The Government wish to encourage a wide-ranging debate on the future of Europe in advance of the intergovernmental conference in 2004. I will continue to contribute to that debate. Indeed, the Spanish presidency of the European Union is organising a major seminar on that issue next month in Segovia, where I shall speak.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am glad that my right hon. Friend is taking part in that conference. As she is aware, one of the key issues facing Europe is enlargement. As she knows, enlargement will mean that more than 70 million people will join the eurozone. Does she agree that Scottish business and Scottish jobs are likely to suffer if more countries join the eurozone while the United Kingdom remains outside? Does she therefore agree that Scottish business and Scottish jobs need more than ever an early decision on British membership of the single currency?

Helen Liddell: Scottish business and Scottish jobs need to be certain that the economic conditions are right for Britain's membership of the single currency. We are the only Government ever to have said that we have no objection in principle to the single currency, but joining it must be within the context of meeting the five economic conditions set by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point about enlargement, which may mean something like £175 million per annum coming to Scotland; however, that money will come to Scotland only if Scottish companies are prepared.

Alex Salmond: Can the Secretary of State identify for the House the precise benefits that will accrue to Scottish workers from the Prime Minister's new right-wing alliance with Silvio Berlusconi? Can she draw on her own experience to warn him of the dangers of becoming entangled with unscrupulous media tycoons?

Helen Liddell: I am intrigued that the hon. Gentleman does not think that the Prime Minister should have any contact with democratically elected Prime Ministers. Indeed, as well as working with the Italian Government—I take it that the hon. Gentleman is talking about that Government—the Government have worked with all the other 14 members of the European Union. Consequently, we now play a leading role in the European Union. As a direct result of the Government's policies on a flexible work force, increasing skills, and developing the knowledge economy, we have the lowest unemployment for more than a generation, more people in employment than for 40 years, the lowest interest rates and one of the most prosperous economies in Europe.
	What a big difference from what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting—Britain as part of the European Free Trade Association or the European economic area. Under an independent Scotland, our partners would be Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.

Ian Davidson: Does the Secretary of State accept that Scotland has a greater interest in European prosperity because we have a much greater proportion of trade with Europe than does the rest of the UK? Does she accept that if we consider joining the euro, we must ensure that we do so at the right rate? Joining at the present rate would lock in a degree of uncompetitiveness that would not serve us well in future. Does she accept that the devaluation that would be necessary if we changed the rates in the short term would cause inflation, which would be in no one's interest?

Helen Liddell: The Government's policy on exchange rates is that they will fluctuate and find their own balance in the medium term, which is as it should be. I repeat to my hon. Friend the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz); it is important that the five economic tests are met. A key issue is ensuring that we have a robust place in the European Union and are able to withstand external shocks; I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) was referring to that.
	The Government's logical position of prepare and decide is a lot more sensible than the position expounded by Baroness Thatcher, who said that we should never enter the European Union and, indeed, blamed everything that has ever gone wrong in Europe on our partners in continental Europe; her angle was narrow-minded, regressive and backward-looking.

Greg Knight: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a world of difference between promoting Scotland's interests and doing what she has been doing—trying to promote the interests of the Prime Minister? Is it not the case that the Prime Minister wants a united states of Europe, with a single constitution, a single currency, a single foreign policy, a single economic policy and a euro-army? Is not that why Ministers are not standing up for Scotland against the rising tide of euro-federalism? Would not Scotland's interests be better served by a free market, flexible union of member states, to enable Scotland to retain its national identity and its own currency?

Helen Liddell: Every time the right hon. Gentleman comes to the Dispatch Box, he displays his lack of knowledge about Scotland. Scotland benefits more than other parts of the European Union from our membership. A greater proportion of our exports goes to our European partners than goes to the United States of America, for example. We have benefited from the Government's policy of playing a leading role in Europe, rather than the previous Government's bonkers policy of trying to pretend that we could pull up the drawbridge on Europe. Businesses the length and breadth of Scotland are appalled by the attitude that the former leader of the Conservative party propounds in her most recent book. I urge him to come to the Dispatch Box and repudiate the views of Baroness Thatcher.

John McFall: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that she will take no cognisance of the Conservative party, which wants to come out of Europe? That is the honest message that the Conservatives should be putting across. When she discusses the future of Europe in Spain next month, will she keep in mind the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, where the number of financial services jobs now exceeds 250,000? Apt financial regulation and EC directives are extremely important if the industry is to flourish in the future.

Helen Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The financial services sector in Edinburgh is a major engine for growth in the Scottish economy. Last Thursday, representatives of the financial community met my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and me to discuss liberalisation and the completion of the single market in financial services. One of the great successes of the Barcelona summit was the movement towards completion of the single market in financial services. Already 25 measures have been approved; seven more are likely to be approved by the end of the year. Such measures are crucial to Scotland and represent a great opportunity for Scottish financial services. If we listen to the Conservative party, we hear euroscepticism that is damaging to Scotland's best interests. If we listen to the nationalists, their policy is to take us out of the European Union, because two former eurocrats said that perhaps, if they were awfully good, an independent Scotland might get into the EU. That is backward looking and regressive. We speak about the real issues; they speak about separation.

Strategic Rail Authority

Bill Wiggin: What recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive on how the Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan will affect Scotland.

George Foulkes: My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with Scottish Executive Ministers on a wide range of matters.

Bill Wiggin: I am sure that the Minister is appalled, as I am, that Scottish rail passengers—[Hon. Members: "It says here."] It certainly does. I am sure that he is appalled that Scottish rail passengers are again being inconvenienced by strikes by the drivers. What action are he and his counterpart on the Scottish Executive taking to tell the unions that the strikes are out of order? If he does not take action, does he realise that the strikes will continue for two days a week until the end of the year? Can he tell me what part he played in the £34 million handout?

George Foulkes: We are concerned at the way that the Scottish travelling public will be inconvenienced—and have been inconvenienced—by the strikes. Our first concern is for the Scottish passengers. Both the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive believe that the operators and the trade union representatives should get back round the table as quickly as possible to resolve the dispute. I take the opportunity today to call on the management and the unions to resolve the matter through negotiation as soon as possible.

Gavin Strang: Last week, at a meeting with the leader of East Lothian council, the chief executive of Great North Eastern railway confirmed that the company still wants to build a new Edinburgh Parkway station at Musselburgh. Does he agree that such a station will encourage more people to travel to London by rail rather than by air, which itself would be a good thing, and provide a better service for commuters into Edinburgh, which would lead to more people travelling by rail to Edinburgh, which would also be a good thing? Will my hon. Friend give such a station his full support?

George Foulkes: The SRA wants to encourage more people to use the railways and a 50 per cent. increase in passenger kilometres is envisaged. My right hon. Friend will know that the £400 million redevelopment of Waverley station is included, and he will welcome that. I shall certainly take on board his specific suggestion, discuss it with my colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Scottish Executive and write to him in due course.

Jacqui Lait: As the unions have announced another 11 days of strikes against commuters in Scotland, will the Minister take any action or will he just talk about taking action? What plans does he have in his busy diary to champion the commuters and stop that disruption to the wealth-creating community in Scotland where growth is still below trend?

George Foulkes: I thought that I answered that in reply to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin). Unlike the hon. Lady, I am a regular user of trains—trains in Scotland and to and from Scotland—so I understand the concerns. I even travel to Tynecastle by train occasionally, and very fruitful it has been recently. What I said earlier is important. We do not want to interfere. Interfering Governments can create more problems. I suggested earlier that negotiations round the table between the unions and the management should take place as quickly as possible to resolve the matter and, once again, I repeat that that is what should happen.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

The Advocate-General was asked—

Devolution

Annabelle Ewing: What devolution issues have been raised since 12 February under the Scotland Act 1998.

Tam Dalyell: What devolution issues have been raised in the last month under the Scotland Act 1998.

Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues have been raised since 12 February under the Scotland Act 1998.

Lynda Clark: Since 12 February, 36 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me, and 17 of those concerned questions of delay in criminal proceedings in relation to article 6.1 of the European convention on human rights. Last week, I argued a case in the High Court of Justiciary over four days, which may help to resolve some of the difficulties in devolution cases based on delay.

Annabelle Ewing: I draw the Advocate-General's attention to another important devolution issue that was raised in the House a couple of weeks ago and in the Scottish Parliament last week, and that concerns the important issue of planning consent for new nuclear power stations in Scotland. Will she take this opportunity to clarify the matter once and for all and to agree with her colleague in the Scottish Parliament, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Lifelong Learning and Transport, who, on 14 March in the Scottish Parliament, said that the final decision lay with the Scottish Parliament and that there could be no question of Westminster reclaiming jurisdiction on the matter without the consent of the Scottish Parliament?

Lynda Clark: I do not think that the hon. Lady fully understands my role, despite my best efforts. My role is to consider devolution issues when they are intimated to me and, in due course, if a devolution issue is intimated to me on that matter I shall certainly consider it, but I am not here to give answers to hypothetical questions in relation to legislation that does not yet exist.

Tam Dalyell: What advice does the Advocate-General have as to the proper authority to address the concerns of my former constituent, ex-Woman Police Constable Mary Boylan, about the alleged suppression of police evidence in relation to Lockerbie?

Lynda Clark: I am certainly aware of my hon. Friend's long interest in these matters and I am sure that he will make his usual strenuous efforts on behalf of his former constituent but, as he knows, these matters are devolved. The matter is for the Scottish Executive under the Scotland Act 1998 and he should direct all inquiries to them.

Anne McIntosh: With regard to the vexed issue of who will have the final say on planning future nuclear power stations, the Advocate-General will understand that the particular problem is who will have the last word. Is it an energy problem, and will it be the Department in London, or is it a planning problem, and will it be the Scottish Minister?

Lynda Clark: The hon. Lady must understand that that depends entirely on how the legislation is framed and the form in which it comes. The legislation can be framed in a variety of ways, and if and when it is passed by the Scottish Parliament—or if it comes to me in my role as Advocate-General—I shall deal with it.

Inland Revenue

Robert Smith: How many cases she has been asked to pursue by the Inland Revenue; and how many she has pursued.

Lynda Clark: There has been provision in legislation since 1857 to the effect that proceedings in the Court of Session raised by the Inland Revenue shall be in the name of the appropriate Law Officer. Following devolution, the Advocate-General became the appropriate Law Officer. The Advocate-General has no responsibility for raising or conducting proceedings. That responsibility, along with all policy decisions, remains with the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue. Proceedings are instructed or conducted by the office of the solicitor to the Inland Revenue, and, since May 1999, more than 1,300 Inland Revenue actions have been dealt with, as I have just explained.

Robert Smith: I am disappointed to hear that there does not seem to be discretion as to whether to take those actions forward. Perhaps the Advocate-General will consider whether, once legal advice has been sought, some actions should not be pursued on the grounds that there may have been a genuine mistake. In particular, will she consider whether a growing number of cases are having to be pursued because of the complexity of the tax system? Perhaps she will encourage the Chancellor to consider simplifying the tax system, especially in the light of self-assessment.

Lynda Clark: As I tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman, policy matters and the conduct of litigation in Inland Revenue cases are not matters for me as Advocate-General. In my role as a constituency Member, however, I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

Lay Magistrates

Simon Hughes: How many serving lay magistrates there were in (a) 1979, (b) 1987 and (c) 2001; and how many are expected to be serving in 2003.

Michael Wills: In 1979 there were 24,021 magistrates; in 1987 there were 27,926 magistrates; and in 2001 there were 28,735 magistrates. It is impossible to say how many magistrates will be serving in 2003. I would expect that there will be more or less the same number as were serving in 2001, but the number appointed and the numbers leaving the magistracy fluctuates inevitably from year to year.

Simon Hughes: Will the Minister accept that the figures show that there was growth in the number of lay magistrates every year from 1979 to 1997, but, that since 1997, there has been a considerable net reduction? Indeed, there are now fewer magistrates than there were 10 years ago. Is it Government policy that more lay people should be encouraged to be lay magistrates taking part in the criminal justice system in that way? If so, why have the numbers tailed off in the last five years of the Labour Government? What will the Government do to make sure that the numbers get back on the upward trend that they were following in each year of the predecessor Government?

Michael Wills: The Government's policy is to have adequate numbers of people joining the lay magistracy. We feel that that is currently the case, although, inevitably, numbers fluctuate. The important point lying behind the hon. Gentleman's question is that we want people to continue to apply to become lay magistrates, as they play a very important part in our system of justice. We are making considerable efforts not only to encourage more people to apply but to ensure that we have a proper range of diversity, in terms of class and ethnic composition. We are doing pretty well on gender at the moment, but we need to drive our efforts forward. The Lord Chancellor's advisory committees are doing a splendid job at the moment, but we will shortly announce a national recruitment strategy to keep the pressure up and to make sure that we get the magistrates that we deserve.

Peter Pike: Does the Minister feel that the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are succeeding in their efforts to try to make magistrates benches more representative of the areas in which they serve? Does he feel that there are sufficient numbers of working people in many areas on magistrates benches? Is the work load of magistrates increasing and becoming impossible to manage?

Michael Wills: I shall take my hon. Friend's questions in sequence. We are having considerable success. I want to pay tribute to the work done by the Lord Chancellor's advisory committees in broadening the diversity of the magistrates bench. To give one example, 9.3 per cent. of magistrates recruited last year were from ethnic minorities. The proportion is therefore increasing, and we are having considerable success. There are not enough people from as wide a social class base as we would wish, and we need to do better on that, too. The work load of magistrates has not been increasing unduly, and there is no evidence that that is a disincentive to people joining the bench.

William Cash: Does the Minister accept that there was a degree of complacency in the way in which he has addressed this question? After all, there has been a sharp drop in the number of lay magistrates—down by 5.2 per cent. between January 2000 and April 2001. As he tacitly admitted, under the Conservative Government between 1979 and 1997, the number of justices of the peace increased. Despite what the Prime Minister said in Prime Minister's questions last week, does the Minister accept that the sharp drop in the number of magistrates—together with the recent admission by the Lord Chancellor that the number of criminals brought to justice last year fell by 80,000—is the primary reason why more and more criminals are getting away scot-free? The Government have flaunted their manifesto commitment in this respect.

Michael Wills: It is extremely unwise of the hon. Gentleman to pray in aid the previous Conservative Government's record. Under them, crime doubled and the system of criminal justice came very close to collapse, not least because they invested nothing like the funds that need to be invested. We are now investing them.
	However, to pass on from the Conservative party's record in government—I would have thought there is nothing that the hon. Gentleman would like to remind anyone about—I shall now give him the good news about what we are doing. There is no complacency in any area, so he was obviously not listening to what I said. Let me tell him some of the things that the Lord Chancellor's advisory committees are doing to make sure that adequate numbers of people come into the lay magistracy and that they are from the diverse backgrounds that we require. The committees are advertising and putting articles in local newspapers, they are targeting leaflet drops, they are holding open days in courts, they are putting poster displays in public places, they are talking to local groups and employers and they are establishing many contacts with local organisations. That shows no complacency, but a determination to make sure that we get the lay magistracy that we deserve. I very much hope that, instead of criticising the efforts, the hon. Gentleman will support them.

Witness Allowance Act

Doug Naysmith: If he will review the provisions of the witness allowance Act to ensure that those appearing as witnesses are not out of pocket.

Rosie Winterton: There is no single witness allowance Act. Allowances are set in various regulations and are paid to non-expert witnesses in both criminal and civil cases. Financial loss allowances, which are reviewed annually, are set payments whose size depends on the time that a witness spends at court. The current levels are calculated to ensure that those with average earnings or less should not be out of pocket. Travel and subsistence are paid separately.

Doug Naysmith: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but wish to point out that being a witness can be both stressful and time consuming. People are also sometimes left out of pocket. When she reviews the payments, will she undertake to consider the other measures that could be taken to make the whole process a much less stressful experience, especially for those witnesses who are particularly vulnerable?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, about which we have been concerned. We have introduced a number of changes, such as video links and witness liaison officers. The Crown court in Bristol is already up and running with a witness support centre and it is using the new pager system, so that witnesses do not have to wait around court for hours on end. Such measures will particularly help vulnerable and intimidated witnesses.

Tony Wright: We know that we have a long-standing problem about providing proper support and facilities for witnesses and particularly in trying to ensure that the physical structure of the courts provides proper places for witnesses to go and to be supported. Will my hon. Friend say something about progress on that front?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. Such important facilities should be available, in particular for family cases. We are making progress in all courts to ensure that proper facilities are available, including witness support centres, and that there are also facilities for the separation of witnesses when that is necessary.

Queen's Counsel

Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on progress with the Office of Fair Trading report with reference to the Queen's counsel system.

Michael Wills: The appointment of Queen's counsel is one of a number of issues relating to the legal profession raised in the OFT report that fall to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to consider. We will consult shortly on the issues raised.

Andrew Dismore: I remind my hon. Friend that the OFT report questioned
	"whether . . . it was right for the Government to have responsibility for conferring on selected practitioners . . . a title that manifestly enhances their earning power and competitive position",
	stated:
	"There remain concerns . . . that there is no continuous quality appraisal . . . inadequate peer review . . . and . . . no professional examinations",
	and concluded:
	"it is questionable what the value of the system is to consumers."
	We do not have Queen's plumbers, Queen's electricians, or even Queen's metalworkers. How can there be any justification for the anti-competitive, price-rigging cartel which is the Queen's counsel system? My hon. Friend promised the consultation many months ago, but nothing has happened. It is about time we had some action to end that appalling practice.

Michael Wills: As always, my hon. Friend states his views with great eloquence and force. As he is well aware, those matters raise complex issues of law, which have taken time to consider. We will make an announcement shortly about the process of consultation on action in respect of those matters.

Judges

Elfyn Llwyd: What initiatives are being pursued to improve the rate of recruitment of judges to the High Court bench; and if he will make a statement.

Michael Wills: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that he continues to be able to appoint practitioners and circuit judges of the highest quality to the High Court bench. The Government have decided to accept the Senior Salaries Review Body's recommendation that the salaries of High Court judges be increased by 8 per cent. over two years. That recognises the importance of maintaining the high quality of appointments to the High Court bench. The increase is in addition to a wide range of other initiatives, including the creation of a commission for judicial appointments.

Elfyn Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that reply. There is an increasing body of opinion that many able candidates are not putting in for appointment at the present time because of the package available to those on the High Court bench. I appreciate that salary is not the only issue, but there is now a huge gulf between the earnings of senior silks and those of those on the High Court bench, which might in future undermine the quality of appointments made.

Michael Wills: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but as he acknowledges salary has never been a factor deterring people from taking up an appointment to the High Court bench. Those who have refused appointment in the past three years have cited lifestyle and family reasons. Judges being appointed earlier in life—in their 40s—but having families rather later in life may provide reasons to decline the Lord Chancellor's offer. It has long been the case that those in practice at the senior Bar take a significant drop in income if they decide to undertake public service by going on to the High Court bench, but there is no shortage of candidates: 52 practitioners and seven circuit judges applied for appointment in 2000, and of those 25 were determined to be appointable.

Lord Chancellor

Vera Baird: Whether the Lord Chancellor intends to continue sitting as a judge; and if he will make a statement.

Rosie Winterton: It is important to the Lord Chancellor's role as head of the judiciary that he should sit from time to time on appeals, as all previous Lord Chancellors have done. In deciding whether he is eligible to sit on an appeal, the Lord Chancellor is guided by the same principles as apply to all judges.

Vera Baird: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but since there are—rightly or wrongly—concerns, especially since the Human Rights Act 1998 was passed, about the Lord Chancellor's position as both a judge in the House of Lords and a senior Cabinet Minister, and since there is not a single woman in the House of Lords judiciary, would he not be praised far and wide if he announced that he would not sit again and appointed a women judge to fill the gap?

Rosie Winterton: The Government believe strongly that the Lord Chancellor's combined role as head of the judiciary and a member of the Cabinet is important to maintaining the independence of the judiciary. As I am sure that my hon. Friend is well aware, the Lord Chancellor is hardly the retiring type, nor is it up to him to nominate his successor, but I am sure that he will make careful note of her application.

Criminal Sentencing

Ian Lucas: If he will make a statement on how judges and magistrates are trained in the comparative efficacy of criminal sentencing.

Michael Wills: Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board, which is an independent and non-departmental public body that also supervises the training of magistrates.
	All newly appointed recorders and deputy district judges are required to attend a residential induction course before they commence sitting, and to visit the probation service and a prison. Thereafter, every three years both judges and recorders attend residential continuation seminars, which cover both sentencing policy and practice. They also attend sentencing seminars, which are run by their presiding judges.
	Magistrates are trained by their legal advisers in their local courts, and they receive guidance on sentencing from the Magistrates Association.

Ian Lucas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he accept that magistrates, in particular, do not receive sufficient detailed information on the effectiveness of non-custodial sentences, which is perhaps reflected in the disproportionate number of custodial sentences handed down by magistrates courts? Will he therefore look into the matter further and try to increase the number of non-custodial sentences imposed by magistrates courts?

Michael Wills: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are constantly looking at the best way to achieve efficacy in sentencing. He will be well aware of the recommendations of the Halliday report. They are still under consideration, and the Government will announce their decision shortly.

PRIVY COUNCIL

The President of the Council was asked—

House of Lords Reform

Fiona Mactaggart: What recent discussions he has had on reform of the House of Lords.

Chris Bryant: If he will make a statement on responses received to the Government's public consultation on reform of the House of Lords.

Robin Cook: The Government are giving careful consideration to the responses to their consultation paper. More than 1,000 were received, and the Lord Chancellor has promised that we will publish them.
	I also welcome the Public Administration Committee's thoughtful contribution to the debate, which has proved that it is possible to find a centre of gravity on the composition of reform among those who want a reformed second Chamber.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but what discussions—if any—have taken place between Cabinet Ministers since the conclusion of the consultation process? What work is under way to produce within seven weeks a response to the Public Administration Committee's report, and to produce plans for reform of the House of Lords that are acceptable to this House? In a recent speech, the Prime Minister described that as a necessary part of the "third phase" of new Labour.

Robin Cook: Like my hon. Friend, I read that speech with great care, and I was encouraged by its commitment to House of Lords reform as part of the Government's "third phase". She asks whether members of the Government have discussed this issue, and I can assure her that there are constant discussions between us. I have no doubt that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is considering when it will be appropriate to bring us together to consider the responses formally.
	We have undertaken that we will respond to the Public Administration Committee's report within the normal two-month period. I hope that we can indeed do so, but I ask the House to bear it in mind that that period includes three weeks in which the House is in recess.

Chris Bryant: It is interesting to learn from my right hon. Friend how many people have replied to the consultation exercise, but it would be particularly interesting to know how many of those respondents prefer an elected element to the second Chamber, especially bearing it in mind that almost half the Members of this House signed an early-day motion calling for a wholly or substantially elected second Chamber. We should also remember that, in giving evidence to the Public Administration Committee, the Lord Chancellor said that a majority of Members oppose a large elected element.

Robin Cook: A number of Members of Parliament and peers responded to the White Paper, and their views are on the record. As I said, we will publish the responses in full in due course, so the House will understand if I do not go into them in detail. However, my hon. Friend asked me a direct question, and I would be misleading the House if I did not say that the overwhelming majority of respondents favour a substantially elected second Chamber.

Paul Tyler: Does the Leader of the House consider that the outcome of this evening's vote on hunting in the other place could affect the time scale for House of Lords reform? Have the discussions to which he referred dealt with the way in which the Parliament Act could be employed in such circumstances?

Robin Cook: I was rather hoping that our questions might provide a 15-minute interlude in the debate on hunting. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no—I cannot see that that has any bearing on the timetable for House of Lords reform.

Greg Knight: Does not the right hon. Gentleman face a real dilemma, in that a majority of members of the parliamentary Labour party, of the Opposition parties, of the Public Administration Committee and of the public want a largely elected second Chamber, but just one man—the Prime Minister—wants to sustain a House of cronies? Will the right hon. Gentleman properly represent the views that exist in the House by going to Downing street this week and telling the Prime Minister that he has got it wrong on this issue, and that he should back down? Or is he afraid that, if he did that, he might be sent to the other place?

Robin Cook: I entertain no such apprehensions. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to read with more care, as I am sure that he would wish to, the speeches my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. They are always rewarding, and frequently inspiring. In my right hon. Friend's most recent speech, he will find a very clear commitment to reform.
	If a dilemma exists in the House, it rests with the Opposition. How on earth do they square their commitment to having an 80 per cent. elected second Chamber with a lifetime opposition to having any elected Members of that Chamber?

David Taylor: Should not House of Lords reform aim to give future Members of that House a greater spirit of independence? Would not measures such as long, non-renewable terms, the exclusion of Ministers and the development of an investigative rather than legislative role weaken the grip of Whips, and reduce the often malign influence that they exert, in this House and elsewhere?

Robin Cook: I cannot hold out any prospect of a second Chamber without Whips, but my hon. Friend touches on what I think is a broad consensus in the debate—that the purpose of the second Chamber should be to revise, deliberate and advise, and not to usurp the role of the first Chamber. That is why it is important that we get the balance right: the second Chamber must be legitimate, in that it represents the British people, but it must not compete with this House in terms of the democratic mandate.

Joyce Quin: What is my right hon. Friend's definition of the phrase "in due course" in relation to the response to the consultation? Does he agree that the experience with appointed second Chambers in other countries is that they are as likely as elected second Chambers to flex their muscles and disagree with their lower Houses? Might not the debate taking place in the other House today be a further illustration of that?

Robin Cook: I do not want to predict the outcome of today's debate in the other place, although I shall follow it with close interest. My right hon. Friend asks about the definition of "in due course", but the House should bear in mind that—quite rightly and properly—we delayed the end of the consultation period so that we could take account of the report from the Select Committee on Public Administration. We have committed ourselves to responding to that report in the course of April. I think that it would be sensible to publish the responses in the same period.

Select Committees

Vera Baird: What plans he has to pursue the reform of Select Committees.

David Cairns: What plans he has for implementing reform of the Select Committee system.

Robin Cook: The Modernisation Committee published last month its proposals to strengthen the Select Committees, including a more independent and impartial system of nomination to the Select Committees, more specialist staff to support them, and a larger Committee size to enable more members to take part in scrutiny.
	I warmly welcome today's report on our proposals from the Liaison Committee. It concludes that the Committee can support "most of the proposals", and welcomes our statement of core tasks as a valuable contribution to improving the focus of Committee work. Good scrutiny makes for good Government, and I believe that the House is on course for better scrutiny through stronger Committees.

Vera Baird: Given my right hon. Friend's view that good scrutiny makes for good Government, and that Select Committees are the most developed vehicle for scrutiny, will he do his best to ensure that, in future, Bills are produced in draft in sufficient time to allow thorough scrutiny before they are brought to this Chamber for Second Reading?

Robin Cook: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's proposal, and with the thrust of her question. I have said repeatedly to the House that, if we want the House of Commons to shape legislation, it is important that it and its Members have an opportunity to intervene early, when a Bill is still in draft form. It will take time to achieve the objective of making pre-legislative scrutiny the norm and the routine for most Bills, but I hope that we will produce more draft Bills in the course of this Session than was the case in the previous Session, and that we continue to increase the number in the next Session.

David Cairns: I begin by declaring an interest to my right hon. Friend. Under the current system of appointing Select Committee members, and despite my best endeavours, I have been completely unsuccessful in getting on to one, so I welcome any reform.
	I warmly welcome the plans described by my right hon. Friend to strengthen the role of Select Committees. Does he agree that if that reform is to be successful it must be funded reform, and that if Committees are to be given more tasks, especially in scrutinising legislation, they will require more in the way of clerking and expert advice? What plans does he have to ensure that Select Committee reform will be accompanied by an increase in resources?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend will be encouraged by the proposal to increase the size of the membership of Select Committees, which will allow another 50 Members to join them. I hope that his ambition will thereby be fulfilled when the report is accepted.
	On resources, we have proposed that specialist staff should be appointed, especially to help Committees with financial scrutiny. I am grateful to the National Audit Office for its willingness to second staff to carry out that role. In return, we ask Select Committees to apply more discipline and consistency in the way in which they tackle financial scrutiny.

Edward Leigh: Has the Leader of the House noted—I am sure that he has—the strong view expressed by the Liaison Committee that all Select Committees should get more involved in Departments' estimates? Has he further noted the willingness of the National Audit Office to get involved in the work of advising Committees? Does he agree that Parliament built up its powers on the basis of financial scrutiny and that there is much more that Select Committees can do to hold the Executive to account on financial matters?

Robin Cook: Yes, and I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for welcoming our proposals on providing staff. I referred to the National Audit Office; its offer is very helpful. If the Select Committee system is to be successful in carrying out the high-quality standards of scrutiny that we all desire, it must be able to tackle financial estimates and to look at outturns at the end of the financial year.

Tony Baldry: The Leader of the House is correct that the Liaison Committee broadly supported the proposals by the Modernisation Committee, but does he accept that one suggestion that did not command support from the majority of its members was that the number of Select Committees should be substantially increased, and that many Chairmen and members of Committees take the view that the present number of Committees is an optimum number that enables effective scrutiny and effective participation in the work of Committees?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman is correct that we did not get a 100 per cent. score, but in his press release the Chairman of the Liaison Committee described the reports as excellent, and I shall happily settle for that as a pass mark.
	The hon. Gentleman will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) say that he and many others are excluded from participation in Select Committees. I do not think that a Committee of 15 members, which is after all the size of the Modernisation Committee, should preclude us from reaching consensus.

Harry Barnes: Before 1997, I served for eight years on the Select Committee on European Legislation—now European Scrutiny—which scrutinises European Union matters and does valuable work for the House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that its authority should be extended so that it can deal with individual nations in the European Union—taking that brief away from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—and its work can be much more substantial as regards dealing with matters that go beyond procedural issues and are concerned with the entire politics of the European Union?

Robin Cook: I got myself into some hot water with the Foreign Affairs Committee last July, and I would not wish to repeat the experience. However, my hon. Friend is right that we need to consider how we scrutinise European policy and regulations. I am looking forward to the forthcoming report from the European Scrutiny Committee on that issue, and I give hon. Members an undertaking that we will look sympathetically at ways in which the House can improve its scrutiny of European affairs.

Legislation (Programming)

Graham Brady: What assessment he has made of the implications for legislative scrutiny of the experimental arrangements for programming of legislation.

Stephen Twigg: I am delighted that anticipation of my answer to the question seems to have filled the Conservative Benches. When hon. Members from all parties have worked together constructively, I believe that programming has achieved its objective of providing a more robust framework for scrutiny of legislation.

Graham Brady: Does the Parliamentary Secretary share my concern that under the new programming arrangements, Committees are all too often denied the opportunity properly to scrutinise legislation, especially through the operation of what have become known as knives, used by Government Whips? Are not important aspects of legislation undebated by hon. Members? The Education Bill, which has gone to the House of Lords, included powers for the Secretary of State to form companies, powers for school governors, provisions for forming federations of schools and for admissions, exclusions and attendance. All were undebated by the House of Commons and we now have to depend on another place to do our job for us. Is not that regrettable?

Stephen Twigg: We shall, of course, keep the progress of programming under review. Flexibility is built into the programming regime. For example, an additional day was provided for discussion of the Education Bill on Report. Programming can benefit all hon. Members, but the Opposition have a choice about whether they want to use it for delay and obstruction or for genuine scrutiny and debate. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the memo that the shadow Leader of the House sent last September. It stated:
	"We should be more discriminating in targeting Bills in Standing Committee, putting 'A' teams on the bigger . . . Bills to ensure searching scrutiny, testing out Ministers, and that the Bill cannot be completed in the allocated time, thus passing it to the Lords imperfectly scrutinised."
	The Opposition have a choice about how to handle their tactics. Better programming gives an opportunity for better scrutiny, better debate and therefore better law.

Afghanistan

Bernard Jenkin: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the war in Afghanistan.
	Yesterday's announcement by the Secretary of State for Defence about the deployment of a British battle group of 1,700 soldiers for combat operations came as a surprise and represented a major escalation of British combat operations in Afghanistan. It was inevitable that yesterday's exchanges only touched on some issues, such as complications arising from the split chain of command, the intended length of 45 Commando's tour and the fact that it is unusual to deploy such a large force in combat operations without dedicated air support. The House is entitled to discuss such urgent matters fully before 45 Commando is deployed; it will already be deployed by the time we return from the Easter recess on 9 April. The subject cannot wait until after Easter.
	Yesterday's statement also compounded the uncertainties that surround the future of the peacekeeping force under British command. On 10 January, the Government led the House to believe that Turkey had made a firm offer to take over the leadership of the international security assistance force. We expected the Turkish Prime Minister to confirm that at 4 pm our time yesterday, but no announcement was made and the question continues to hang in the balance.
	The matter is also urgent because by the time we return from the Easter recess Turkey may have refused to lead ISAF. The House has had no opportunity to discuss that eventuality. We should hold such a discussion before decisions are made in our absence.
	Moreover, yesterday I asked about the financial contribution that Britain is being asked to make to support Turkey's leadership. I understand that Turkey is now demanding $300 million for a six-month operation to be funded by the United States and the United Kingdom alone. If ISAF's mandate is to be extended, we should discuss it before it is a fait accompli. The Government should account to the House before entering into any unforeseen financial commitment on our behalf.
	Let there be no doubt that we shall continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in the war against terrorism. As I said yesterday, we support the decision to accede to the US request for 45 Commando. However, that does not absolve the House of its obligation to debate all the urgent issues. We have only four sitting days before we rise for the Easter recess. Without such a debate, we shall fail in our duty to hold the Government to account.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter, which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely the war in Afghanistan. I am satisfied that the matter is proper to be discussed under the Standing Order.
	The leave of the House having been given, the motion stood over under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business tomorrow.

Points of Order

Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that I have to draw your attention to one more case of Parliament being bypassed on a very serious matter.
	Yesterday afternoon, there was a break-in at Castlereagh police station in Belfast. A number of people broke into the Special Branch office and subsequently made good their escape. It is not known what they took, or what information they obtained, but it will be clear to the House that any breach of the security of special branch, particularly in Northern Ireland, is an extremely sensitive matter. The information held by special branch, and the identity of the people who may have made that information available, is crucial to policing operations.
	I understand that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said this afternoon that the operations of Special Branch are
	"crucial not only for the safety of people in Northern Ireland but for national security more generally."
	The trouble is that he made that statement not here in the House but to the press. He has answered questions from the press, but he has not made himself available to answer questions in the House.
	This is not the first time that I, or other colleagues, have had to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, abuses of this kind by this Government over the last few months. Under the powers available to you, can you do anything to bring home to the Government their responsibilities to Parliament? Given that I cannot see on tomorrow's Order Paper any question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that would provide the opportunity for us even briefly and superficially to get to grips with this serious matter, can you do anything to give Members a chance to ask vital questions about the unfortunate situation following the break-in?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has put the matter on the record; the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will therefore be aware of his concerns.

Lady Hermon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I bring to the House's attention the fact that the break-in at special branch's office at Castlereagh occurred on Sunday evening, not yesterday? The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was in America at the time, and returned only this morning. In the interim, there has been extreme speculation about the origins of those who committed the break-in. The Secretary of State spoke to the Chief Constable this morning—it was the right thing to do in the circumstances—and ordered that a review be conducted in conjunction with the criminal investigation that had already been ordered by the Chief Constable.
	In his press interview, the right hon. Gentleman declined to give details of the break-in, saying:
	"I think you will understand that I may have to make further details available to Parliament."
	He will have an opportunity to do so at Question Time tomorrow, and I hope that you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that that would be an appropriate time for him to address what he has acknowledged to be a very serious breach of national security.

Mr. Speaker: I heard what the hon. Lady had to say, and it is not a matter for the Chair. Once again, however, I am sure that the Secretary of State will take note of the concerns that have been expressed.

Nicholas Soames: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that this break-in represents a catastrophic failure of security. It is not an everyday occurrence, or one of those ordinary run-of-the-mill situations in Northern Ireland that we have learned to live with over the past 30 years. It is a total failure of security in the most sensitive area of Government policy in Northern Ireland.
	I understand your situation exactly, Mr. Speaker, but would it not be possible for you to issue—even in the most veiled terms—a direction to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to discuss the matter when he comes to the House tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: The best thing I can say is that, obviously, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will involve himself in a full investigation. I am sure that when it has been completed he will come to the House.

Roger Gale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are entering into a debate about this matter. There is not much more that I can say about it.

Roger Gale: The issue directly concerns your own powers, Mr. Speaker, and the defence of the privileges of Back Benchers.
	It is clear that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has sheltered behind the opportunity to make a statement to the House. Surely it is open to you, as Speaker and as defender of Back-Bench privilege, to say to the Secretary of State that the opportunity is available to him to come to the House tomorrow and make the statement that he has already indicated to the press he is willing to make.

Mr. Speaker: There is no evidence that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has shown the House any discourtesy. I repeat that he will endeavour to be involved in a full investigation, and I am sure that he will come to the House. I think that the matter is now best left alone.

Age Discrimination

Paul Burstow: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate against persons on grounds of age in connection with employment or the provision of goods; to establish an Age Equality Commission with the function of working towards the elimination of such discrimination and promoting age equality generally; and for connected purposes.
	We have a caste system in this country. It is not a caste system based on race, creed or class; but on age.
	Ageism is rife in our country. Ageist assumptions lead employers to cast thousands of people on the scrapheap, and to ignore the pool of talented over-50s. Ageist attitudes lead to arbitrary rationing of access to care on the basis of a person's age rather than a personal assessment.
	There is no such thing as a typical older person, and age is a poor proxy for ability. My Bill is intended to confront this ageist mindset head-on.
	A poll conducted for Age Concern and published earlier this year found that 70 per cent. of our fellow citizens believe that age discrimination occurs in this country. The same poll found that 65 per cent. believe it is time Parliament legislated to make discrimination on the ground of age illegal.
	Quite apart from any moral case for anti-discrimination legislation, there is a powerful economic case. The Employers Forum on Age estimates that age discrimination costs UK plc £31 billion a year. At present one in three people between 50 and state-pension age are out of work—2.8 million. Only a minority of those affected have made early retirement a lifestyle choice. Almost half depend on benefits for most of their income.
	Help the Aged recently published the results of a survey of employers. In the case of half the companies surveyed, fewer than 10 per cent. of employees were over 50, and one in 10 employed no one over that age. That is not surprising given that, according to research by the Institute of Employment Rights, more than 50 per cent. of managers admit that they have used age-based criteria for recruitment purposes. The Government's own research reveals that for every £100 spent by companies on training, just £10 is spent on training older workers.
	Over the past five years, the Government's response to ageism—particularly in employment—has been to promote a voluntary code of practice to extol the virtue of change, but not to extend the right to protection against discrimination. The code has not worked: it has had little or no impact on employers. Research by the Employers Forum on Age reveals that just one in four know of its existence.
	When we delved further, we discovered that employers do not understand the code. Half of them thought that it deals with age limits in advertisements; five per cent. thought that it is about fast-tracking younger workers; and 30 per cent. had no idea what it covers.
	In four years' time, the Government will be obliged by the EU directive on equal treatment in employment to introduce age discrimination legislation. Four more years is a long time to wait for legislation that is already long overdue. Legislating now on age discrimination would provide the necessary time and space for a body of practice, case law and expertise to develop. Delay runs the risk that age discrimination will always be the poor relation of discrimination.
	My Bill addresses ageism not just in the labour market but in the provision of goods and services. Last year, the Government published the national service framework for older people, which aims to tackle age bars in health and social care, but a King's Fund survey of health and social care managers found them ill-equipped to implement the fine words of the framework.
	The use of upper age limits across a range of health and social care services is well documented. Most recently, Help the Aged has compiled a comprehensive picture of age discrimination cutting across public policy.
	In January, the King's Fund report, "Old Habits Die Hard: Tackling age discrimination in health and social care", reported that three out of four senior health and social care managers believe that age discrimination exists in their local services. Those include policies that restrict access to units, facilities and treatment by setting upper or lower age limits. For example, in several areas specialist rehabilitation services for patients with brain injuries focus on return to work and so have an age restriction of 65. Those findings led the King's Fund to call for age discrimination legislation.
	I do not pretend that legislation by itself will make discrimination go away, but it will give public and private service managers the incentive and the leverage to make meaningful changes in their organisations. It may even stop us trying to get care of the elderly on the cheap. The fact that we pay so much less for residential care for the elderly compared with other age groups is itself discrimination—it should not take a Rose Cotter presenting a petition to Downing street to tell us that.
	Legislation will send a signal. Lessons from abroad suggest that legislation has a positive effect on the employment rates of older workers. However, age discrimination legislation will only be as effective as the way it is enforced. That is why the Bill also proposes an age equality commission with powers to conduct research and issue promotional material, to carry out formal investigations of individual or group complaints and to issue compliance notices and back them up with judicial orders if compliance does not take place.
	Since 1997, 15 attempts have been made to put age discrimination legislation on the statute book; all have foundered or been blocked. Today, 30 Acts, 38 statutory instruments, 11 codes of practice and 12 EU directives and recommendations make up the body of UK anti-discrimination law. Age barely gets a mention.
	Ageism is economic madness—it is costing this country a fortune. Age is a very poor indicator of a person's competence or ability to contribute. It is time that the House put age at the centre of our discrimination law. I urge the House to support the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paul Burstow, Ms Candy Atherton, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. Roger Berry, Andrew Selous, Hywel Williams, Mr. A.J. Beith, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Steve Webb and Dr. Evan Harris.

Age Discrimination

Paul Burstow accordingly presented a Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate against persons on grounds of age in connection with employment or the provision of goods; to establish an Age Equality Commission with the function of working towards the elimination of such discrimination and promoting age equality generally; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 May, and to be printed [Bill 113].

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[12th Allotted Day]

Education and Skills Training

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Damian Green: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the mounting crisis in education; regrets that unauthorised absences from secondary schools are rising, and that examination standards in mathematics fell last year among 11-year-olds; further notes that morale among teachers has fallen so low that three teaching unions are currently engaged in industrial action, including an unprecedented ballot on industrial action among head teachers; regrets the early departure from the teaching profession of so many qualified teachers; notes that teachers themselves blame the excessive workload caused by Government interference for many of these early departures; condemns the Government for its lack of support for teachers seeking to cope with disciplinary problems in schools; asks the Government to explain fully the precipitate ending of Education Action Zones; calls on the Government to restore confidence in the examination board system after the various fiascos faced by Edexcel; notes that morale among university teachers and students is also low because of funding problems; further condemns the way decent training providers, including FE colleges, were let down by the failure of Individual Learning Accounts (ILAs); and calls on the Government to make an immediate announcement about how it intends to help those affected by the ILA collapse, and what scheme it proposes to replace ILAs.
	This Government are energetic at peddling myths. It is one of the defining characteristics of the Government that they never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Nowhere is this more true than in the field of education. Relentlessly, the Secretary of State rushes out press releases announcing how our schools are prospering as never before; how teachers gladly welcome each new day and each new initiative; how head teachers open their post each morning, thrilled by the prospect of another 100 pages of guidance about how to do their jobs; how students and university teachers are grateful for the decisive way in which the Government are dealing with higher education funding; and how training providers and their customers were so impressed by ILAs that the whole system had to be closed down because it was so successful.
	The myth is polished every day, and the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on the fact that the central core of her Department—the press office—still functions, unlike in some other Departments. So the polish goes on but, sadly for the Government, the truth is beginning to emerge from beneath the polish. Five years in, the real failures cannot be disguised any longer. When parents see teachers on strike for the first time in 20 years; when they see head teachers threatening industrial action for the first time since state education was introduced; when they notice that teachers are leaving the profession earlier and faster than ever before; and when they see that initiatives such as education action zones are introduced one year and ditched the next, they know that the crisis is getting worse, and they know who is responsible.

James Plaskitt: The hon. Gentleman talks about five years on. In 1997, there were 1,100 infant children in Warwickshire in classes of over 30. Today there are none. Is that a myth?

Damian Green: We are talking about standards—[Interruption.] The Government may not find standards important, but many of us do.
	The Department's problems stem from four distinct causes: broken promises, weakness, policy failures and sheer Government incompetence. Let me deal with these in reverse order. It is plain incompetence on the part of the Government to say that they want to relieve teachers of unnecessary red tape and then continue tying teachers up in it.
	The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) talks about facts and figures. Let us look at the facts, as revealed in a series of written answers to me from the Minister for School Standards. I asked for monthly totals of the paperwork sent to schools by the Department. Last April, documents 853 pages long were sent to every primary school in the country. Let us assume that a conscientious head teacher takes two minutes to read each page. That means that those documents would take over 28 hours just to read. That is three and a half normal working days for each head teacher, even before any action is taken on the basis of the documents.
	April may have been the cruellest month for head teachers, but others were nearly as bad. Last December, secondary schools received 510 pages of wisdom from the Department: probably not the most helpful early Christmas present any school received. Even in September—which most people involved in education, although not, apparently, the Department, recognise is rather a busy time, at the start of the school year—primary school heads had to cope with 402 pages and secondary heads 388 pages; over one and a half working days per head teacher to read these alone.
	The full magnitude of the Government's imposition on schools is revealed by a simple addition exercise. If we add all the documents sent between April last year and February this year—the last date for which the Government will give me answers—we find that there were 4,333 pages for head teachers to plough through. If every head teacher in Britain fulfilled their duty to read all this stuff, that would create 859 years' worth of work; nearly 900 years' worth of bureaucracy in just 11 months.
	That is the true monument to the education policy of new Labour: heads prevented from managing; teachers prevented from teaching; and standards prevented from rising, all because the gentlemen and ladies in Whitehall still think that they know best. When will they learn to get off the backs of teachers and let them get on with their proper job?
	I would like to use this debate to give the Secretary of State the chance to recant something that she told the House on 10 January this year. She said:
	"I say to the House and to head teachers that sending teachers less paper will neither raise standards nor satisfy them of our ability to give them the support that they need".—[Official Report, 10 January 2002; Vol. 377, c. 661.]
	Can she really believe that? If she does, she should get out more. I hope that she will withdraw that absurd view today.

Nigel Beard: The hon. Gentleman is giving a chapter of woe in the education service. Would his case not be stronger in some respects if he acknowledged that since the Conservative Government left office in 1997, the number of children achieving the appropriate standard in numeracy has gone up from 50 per cent. to approximately 80 per cent; and likewise, the number of children achieving appropriate standards of literacy at 11 has risen by a similar amount from 50 per cent.? How does he square that with his tale of denigration and crisis?

Damian Green: I will come to standards in a moment. Labour Members are interested in the fact that standards started rising after the 1980s reforms and carried on rising until, coincidentally, last year. I find it instructive that the Whips' handouts all refer backwards. I am interested in looking at what is happening in our schools now and what is likely to happen as the Government's policies move forward. That, I think, will convince Labour Members who have an open mind on the subject that any of the benefits that may come from their Government's policies are already beginning to wear off. That is the most significant fact that the Government need to address.
	I was giving various examples of incompetence, which is one of the problems faced by the Government. I know—I just feel it—that the Secretary of State will talk about investment. Indeed, the Government's amendment refers to sustained investment. It may be worth while drawing the House's attention to what that means. The Government continually boast about investment, but unfortunately, in another written answer to me, they have been forced to admit that, in 2000-01, they underspent the money allocated to the Department by £1.7 billion.
	The Government appear to be adept at finding initiatives and other ways in which to spend money. The next time we hear the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister boasting about how much sustained investment they are putting into schools, perhaps they will tell us why they cannot even spend the money given to them. That money could have paid for laptop computers for all 429,300 teachers in England. The Government are keen on laptops and they could have provided them—a measure that I support—if they were not so incompetent. They cannot even spend the money that the Treasury gives them.

Chris Mole: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the first two new primary schools to be built in Ipswich for 25 years have been built since 1997? One is at Ravenswood and one at Raeburn and, at a cost of more than £1.5 million apiece, they have replaced the concrete and chicken-wire prefab schools that had been there since the 1920s and 1930s. Does he further accept that since 1997 my Suffolk local education authority area has had the best capital settlement for many years, and that the backlog of minor works in schools that had accumulated while the Tories were in Government, and which stood at £9 million, has been reduced to less than £2.5 million?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must give the hon. Member who is addressing the House an opportunity to speak.

Damian Green: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has the two new primary schools in his constituency—he will soon learn their names without having to read them. However, he should talk to the teachers in those primary schools and see what they say about all the bureaucracy and paperwork that the Government are imposing on them, which I have been talking about. He will recognise over time, when the shine wears off, that teachers' morale is as low as it ever has been in this country, and that that is entirely due to the actions of this Government.

Tom Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Damian Green: Certainly—I will always give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Tom Levitt: I can assure the hon. Gentleman, as one who taught for 20 years—most of that time under the Tories—that morale today is considerably higher than it was in those days.

Damian Green: I invite the hon. Gentleman to visit any school in London—many of them were closed last week by the first National Union of Teachers strike for 30 years—where he will find that the Secretary of State has reduced the morale of teachers in London to historically low levels. In case he missed the beginning of my speech, may I point out that since state education was created in this country in 1870, never have our head teachers united to ballot on industrial action? This Government, who the hon. Gentleman says have made teachers happier than ever before, have reduced head teachers—of all groups in society—to considering industrial action. If he thinks that they are happier than ever before, he is deluding himself.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Government set themselves some ambitious targets. The former Education Secretary, now Home Secretary, said that if he did not achieve certain targets within five years, he would resign. The only Minister who has been in the Department for the whole period of the Labour Government is the Secretary of State. Is she not honour bound to follow what her predecessor said and resign if those targets are not met?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend is right. I have pursued that point with the right hon. Lady in the past and I admire her prudence in refusing to follow her predecessor's policy of promising resignation if the targets are not met. We shall see in a few months whether her conscience has been pricked.
	Let me move from incompetence to policy failures. There are many, but by far the biggest is retaining teachers. I suspect that the right hon. Lady will boast about teacher recruitment. I point out gently that there is no point in recruiting ever higher numbers of trainee teachers if most of them leave within a few years. Pouring ever larger amounts of water into a bucket with a hole in the bottom is not a rational policy. [Interruption.]
	Government Members do not want to take that from me, so perhaps they will take it from Ofsted, whose most recent report admitted that there was a crisis in teacher recruitment and retention. It says—and Government Members waiting with quotes from 1997 should take note of it:
	"these problems have got worse over the past two years."
	Ofsted states that the recruitment and retention of primary school staff is
	"no longer just an inner city issue, but is beginning to affect schools in all regions and all kinds of locations."
	The crisis that we once all knew was happening in our inner-city schools has, according to Ofsted, spread over the past two years under the present Government. The right hon. Lady will be concerned that more than 20 per cent. of teachers leave within three years of joining the profession.
	I further adduce the evidence of the National Union of Teachers, whose survey found that the annual resignation rate in 2001 was 4 per cent. higher than the previous figure provided by employers in 1999. Under this Government, things are getting worse. I have one more piece of evidence before I give way again. About 85 per cent. of teachers who leave the profession—and this figure should worry the whole House—say that they do so for negative reasons connected with the teaching profession rather than because of the attraction of doing something else. People who are keen to be teachers are leaving because they are put off by the education system that they are forced to work in.

Phil Willis: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, we have heard exactly the same speech from the Tory Front Bench for the past five years. What plans does he have to resolve the problems to which he referred?

Damian Green: The simplest way for the Government to do so is by doing less. Instead of producing 1,000 years' worth of bureaucracy every 11 months, doing less would reduce the work load on teachers who would then have less unnecessary paperwork from the Government. [Interruption.] I know that Ministers believe that everything that comes out of the Department is a pearl of wisdom, but it does not work with teachers.
	As ever, faced with the problems to which I have alerted the House, the Department tries to disguise them. As ever, the Government's first reaction to bad news is not to deal with the problem, but to bury the bad news. When, in February, they published "Statistics in Education: Teachers in England 2001", some statistics mysteriously did not even appear on the departmental website. It is rather a good website, often containing loads of information. Funnily enough, however, some figures did not appear. For example, nearly 300,000 qualified teachers under 60 are no longer in the education system; 83,400 people hold teaching certificates that they have never used, in an era of acute teacher shortages; and the number of teacher vacancies in England and Wales rose to 5,000 in 2001—an increase of nearly 60 per cent. from 2000. All the figures are pointing the wrong way. All the surveys show that the main reason teachers are being driven out of the profession is work load. Teachers think their work load excessive—that is even more important to them than pay.
	The Government have made a response, however. I must be fair to them. The Government have noticed that the work load is a problem and their response is—a poster. At first glance, I was relieved that they had produced a poster rather than a 50-page document, but when I actually read the section "Advice and guidance on what schools can do", I found that the first piece of advice was to read circular 2/98. So the Government have produced a circular telling teachers how to reduce their work load.
	The poster has three other sections: one is pure party political propaganda—paid for by the taxpayer. A second section consists of a pie chart telling teachers what they already know—that they are wasting their time reading Government information when they could be teaching or planning lessons. The final section states that:
	"The following common tasks need not routinely be carried out by teachers".
	Sadly they did not include the instruction, "Do not waste your time putting up useless posters on the staffroom wall".

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is probably aware that the Government commissioned a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers which highlighted the embarrassing fact that head teachers were working up to 60 hours a week. The Government's response was to bury the report so deep in the departmental website that the search engine could not even find it.

Damian Green: My hon. Friend has great technological skills and he is right. Departments are consistent throughout Government: if there is bad news they will try to bury it.

Estelle Morris: That is a serious accusation. I should not normally intervene during the opening speech of an Opposition spokesperson, but if someone was trying to bury that bad news, why is that very report currently before the School Teachers Review Body? The STRB is receiving evidence not only from the Government but from every teacher union and association. It will report in public in due course and we shall respond in public. That is the worst way of burying bad news I have ever heard of.

Damian Green: Even the right hon. Lady could not keep a report commissioned by the STRB from the STRB. What she did not want was that it should be found by journalists, Opposition politicians or people who might be interested in studying it.
	The right hon. Lady can argue until she is blue in the face but the plain fact is facing her: she, as Secretary of State, is presiding over the current rash of strikes. Like her, I do not approve of industrial action that damages the education of children. I am happy to admit that she is right about that.

Helen Jones: I am unconvinced by the hon. Gentleman's comments: I, too, taught under the previous Tory Government and I remember what teacher morale was like then.
	If the hon. Gentleman is so keen on cutting teachers' work load, will he explain whether he supports the policy of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who wants to cut public spending to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product? How will those cuts do anything other than increase the work load in the education system and destroy the morale of teachers?

Damian Green: The hon. Lady should pay greater attention to the extremely good speeches of my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor. He has made it clear that the first priority of the Conservative party is to match public spending on our essential public services. Those services are our main priority. I know that the Government find that difficult because, to refer to a topical subject, their fox has been shot.
	To return to the current rash of strikes, which the Government are understandably not keen to talk about, many parents feel a degree of sympathy with teachers who have been driven to the brink by the type of Government interference and micromanagement that I have been outlining. The latest edition of the NUT magazine, The Teacher, states:
	"Such is the sense of grievance and frustration felt by these teachers, not just because of the difficulties they face in finding affordable accommodation, but because of the disturbance and disruption of children's education caused by the staff turnover and the acute teacher shortage."
	All those Members who say that they know teachers better than the NUT does should pay attention to the NUT.
	I particularly recommend this month's edition of The Teacher; it has a good centre-page spread detailing my trip to Germany with a senior NUT official. It sets out the points on which we agreed and disagreed. The House may be relieved to know that at least one of the major parties can still have friendly relations with trade unions even when we disagree on several points. I commend that lesson to the Government, which is run by a party that used to aspire to that as well.

David Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Damian Green: I think that I have given way enough, to be fair.
	I am delighted to be assured by both head teachers' unions that, if they end up taking industrial action, it will not affect teaching in schools. I hope that the Secretary of State would agree that, if they do take industrial action, it is much better that it should not affect teaching and learning. However, I hope that the Government are taking on board the historic nature of the possibility of industrial action by the two head teachers' unions. I am afraid that the aggressive rhetoric that Ministers are using about head teachers is making the situation worse, not better.
	David Hart, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, has rightly said:
	"The last persons in the education world who need a lesson from the Secretary of State on public service reform are head teachers".
	Head teachers have put through a lot of reforms in the past 15 years, under Governments of both parties. Head teachers are naturally most concerned with the performance of their schools, and they are happy to preside over proper change and reform, not to try to implement half-baked, ill thought-out Government policies that reduce morale even further in the staff room.

David Chaytor: Does the hon. Gentleman recall speaking to the north of England education conference in January of this year, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills? Does he specifically recall being forced to admit in his opening remarks that he could not say very much because his party did not have a policy on education? Have things changed since January? If there has been a change, given that he has been speaking for more than 20 minutes, will he tell us what it is?

Damian Green: I very much enjoyed the Huddersfield conference—I was applauded and given a friendly reception. Everyone there—except possibly the hon. Gentleman—thought that what I told them in my opening remarks was entirely sensible. I said that, at the beginning of a Parliament, it is entirely sensible for Opposition parties to think through their policies, so that what they produce is not half-baked. If Labour Members are saying that we should have a fully fledged policy in six months, it is not unreasonable to ask why the Government have miserably failed to produce a coherent education policy after five years in power, following 18 years in opposition.
	The Government have to take decisions day after day on the basis of no coherent policy. We shall work out a coherent and robust education policy that will improve standards in our schools, rather than relying on the hand-to-mouth, initiative-driven system that the Government have been forced to introduce, precisely because they have no coherent thinking on education.
	Ministers frequently say that head teachers are paid to make tough choices, but that just gives rise to hollow laughs in staff rooms around the country. With every month that passes, head teachers' ability to take decisions is restricted by the Government's constant interference. But suddenly, when the decision is tough, there is no Government guidance at all—just a cry of "yours" as the hospital pass is delivered.
	The third group of problems stems from the Government's weakness in tackling issues that they find inconvenient. The best example of that is their many and varied policies on excluding disruptive pupils. For a long time, the Government simply set a target for permanent exclusions to be cut by a third. Understandably, the result has been a decline in the number of exclusions. Those targets prevented head teachers from expelling violent or disruptive pupils, damaging the education of thousands of pupils throughout the country.
	The Secretary of State should know that the NUT has found that 45 per cent. of teachers leaving the profession cited pupil behaviour as the reason for doing so. She should also know that that is a direct consequence of a policy introduced by her predecessor. Ofsted cited
	"the poor behaviour of a minority of pupils"
	as the major reason why teachers leave the profession; it is more important than pay or even work load. The Government's policies on discipline and their weakness on enforcing good discipline in schools are a principal reason why teachers have been driven out of the profession. So much damage has been done that some of it is permanent.
	Let me quote an example sent in response to a survey on our own education website—www.conservatives.com/education, which I commend to all who are interested in education. I believe that there is no provision in "Erskine May" to prevent me from reading out a website address, and I hope that it will be helpful to the House to do so.
	Some serious problems are revealed. I shall quote one pupil who responded to the website. There were three questions:
	"Have you or a friend ever suffered from bullying?"
	The answer was as follows:
	"Yes I ended up suicidal and had a nervous breakdown and a lot of my friends have been bullied too."
	The second question was:
	"What is the worst disciplinary problem at your school?"
	The answer:
	"There is no discipline. At the worst they get suspended for a few days, which isn't a punishment in anyone's eyes. It's just a good excuse to have a few days off."
	Thirdly:
	"Do you think bullying and discipline in your school have been getting worse or better?"
	The answer:
	"Worse, definitely. That's why I am home educated."
	That was the response that we received from a pupil. [Interruption.] Labour Members find this a laughing matter. That shows how distant they are from the real problems. The Government have undermined discipline in schools. They are damaging standards in schools. That is making many school children's lives a misery. [Interruption.] Labour Members find that a laughing matter too.
	The fourth area where the Government have contributed to the crisis is their broken promises. The worst of these is on truancy. In 1998, the Government announced that they planned to cut unauthorised absences from school. They promised a reduction of one third in school truancies by 2002. There has been no reduction in the percentage of half days missed a year through unauthorised absence. It remains at 0.7 per cent. Indeed, the percentage has risen since 1996-97 in maintained secondary schools, from 1 per cent. to 1.1 per cent. Perhaps that is not one of the figures handed out by the Government Whips to Labour Members who wanted to quote figures from 1997 onwards.
	A helpful written answer from one of the Department's Ministers told us that if we add together the authorised and unauthorised absences in every category, including primary schools and secondary schools, the number of half days missed increased significantly between 1999-00 and 2000-01. It has risen from 5.7 per cent. in primary schools to 6.1 per cent. In secondary schools, it has increased from 8.6 per cent. to 9 per cent.
	Given these alarming figures, the social exclusion unit—the Government's central unit dealing with these matters—says that the national truancy rate has remained static. That requires a flexible use of language—the rate seems to be increasing rather than remaining static.
	Another broken promise is on higher education. The Government promised us their review of student support early in the new year. It is 19 March, and quite late in the new year. There is still no sign of the review. I recall a Minister talking about June. It is one of the Government's announcements that is always three months away. We think that the Government should publish their findings as soon as possible and end the uncertainty in which they have left both students and universities.

David Rendel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Damian Green: No. I have given way enough.
	There are four reasons behind the crisis in education, and we know that the Government are in denial of them. Instead of dealing with the problems, the Secretary of State is doing her best to distract attention. On Thursday last week, I was delighted to be informed by Demos that she is launching a new pamphlet on secondary education. We are told that it will contain her vision. We are told that we need to combine this with "ongoing transformative change." Any improvement in the quality of English does not seem to have spread as far as Demos.
	The serious point is that the right hon. Lady prefers publishing pamphlets to dealing with the mess in our schools, colleges and universities that her policies are creating. There is another vision of education, which I commend to the Government. We, the Opposition, believe, as we argued consistently throughout consideration of the Education Bill, that central Government need not and should not take every important decision on education. We support the activities of Ofsted—regular testing and the publication of test results and league tables. Most importantly, we believe that with all that outside inspection the Government do not need to tell schools how to run every minute of the school day.
	The same thinking applies to the organisation of schools. We are relaxed about different types of schools emerging. We have no hang-ups about grammar schools or specialist schools. If a faith school is doing a good job, it should be supported, not have its ethos destroyed, as the Liberal Democrats and many Labour Members want. We are deeply sceptical about the Government's concept of earned autonomy; autonomy earned from a centralising Secretary of State is unlikely to be much autonomy at all. We want real autonomy for schools and an objective, independent, outside inspection system to ensure that they are doing their job for the community.
	The Opposition therefore urge the Government to stop telling teachers how to do every aspect of their job; they are demoralised by constant nagging interference and far too many of them are leaving. The Government must stop introducing new gimmicks and instead sort out the problems in existing policies—a press release is no substitute for competent policy. The Government must stop producing education Bills that centralise power in the hands of the Secretary of State under the cloak of rhetoric about diversity. Schools and local government deserve more trust than the Government are prepared to give them. The Government must stop blaming everyone else for the difficulties caused by their mismanagement.
	Teachers are not wreckers; they are hard-working professionals who are doing their best under increasingly difficult circumstances. The Opposition want an education system that transmits values as well as skills, promotes genuine diversity in schools, and allows good teachers to teach without the constant irritation of a Government directive telling them how to do their job. We want a university system that promotes excellence in learning, and vocational education that provides genuine skills for life for all.
	After five years of this Government, it is increasingly clear that an education policy run by centralised diktat will not, and does not, work. Our schools, colleges and universities deserve better; if the Government cannot provide that, they will rightly stand condemned for failing to deliver on a vital commitment for the future of everyone in this country.

Estelle Morris: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"recognises an education system which is benefiting from an unprecedented period of sustained investment on an unprecedented scale, in parallel with the Government's strategy to raise standards through an ambitious series of reforms of the curriculum, the teaching profession and the organisation of schools; welcomes Ofsted's latest annual report showing the highest ever proportion of good and excellent lessons in schools, and the OECD's PISA Report that the UK performance was above the OECD average across all three domains of reading, mathematical and scientific literacy; notes the other tangible signs of increased investment and reform such as higher academic standards at primary and secondary level, the dramatic reduction in the numbers of infants in large classes, more teachers in schools than at any time in the last decade, extra resources and more people than ever going into Higher Education, with 45,000 new places since 1997; notes further the huge increase in the number of adults who are now acquiring basic skills and learning for their futures; recognises the clear commitment of the Government to address teacher workload in partnership with the unions and other agencies; welcomes the positive proposals the Government has given to headteachers on school exclusions, reinforcing their right to manage their schools and enforce discipline as they see fit; recognises that working closely with parents, police and health professionals is key to tackling unacceptable levels of absence and supports the Government's work in this area; and supports the measures being taken by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to ensure that examination results are delivered successfully."
	The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) thinks that it is acceptable to wipe the slate clean on policy, and seems to have done the same to his memory. While I accept entirely that after five years in government we are accountable for what we have done during that period, it is appropriate to remind people of our starting point. In 1997, it was true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) said, that nearly one third of our infants were in classes of more than 30; there were 11,000 fewer teachers; there were 44,000 fewer education support staff; and four out of 10 of our 11-year-olds were starting secondary education without the literacy and numeracy skills that they needed to access the secondary curriculum. Schoolteachers witnessed year on year cuts in expenditure and year on year increases in class sizes; it took 25 months to turn round a school that had been put in special measures; and there was a £2,800 cut over a number of years in the amount of money given to higher education students.
	I am immensely proud of what we have achieved in five years, but I am not complacent. In one of the most important of all public services, we still have a long way to go. As we defend our record today against the attack, if one can call it that, from the hon. Member for Ashford, I feel more complacent than I should, if that is the worst that the Opposition can pin on us after five years.
	I want to refer to three or four key issues in the motion and in the hon. Gentleman's speech. First, the process of teacher recruitment and retention is far more complicated than he would have us believe. As I have said time after time in the House, I accept that schools, particularly in London and the south-east, but also in Swindon, Reading and Oxford, find it extremely tough to recruit and retain sufficient teachers. I know that head teachers are taking on teachers whom, if they had had more of a choice, they may not have appointed. To pretend otherwise would not be facing up to reality.
	However, another set of statistics shows another aspect of reality that must be considered if we are to make any progress. It was right to ask the hon. Gentleman the question, "What would the Tories do?" because they have come up with only one solution—cut paperwork. However, the problem is more complicated than that. Those of us who believe that recruiting and retaining the best people in the teaching profession is a key challenge must look at the statistics and confront reality.
	The reality is this: there are 11,000 more teachers now than there were in 1997. There are 7,000 more teaching posts this year than there were last year. We are recruiting 8 per cent. more into training to be teachers this year, and that is on top of 5 per cent. more last year.

Andrew Turner: More are leaving.

Estelle Morris: No. Think about the maths. The hon. Gentleman should have had the numeracy hour. If there are more teachers now than there were in 1997, more must be joining than are leaving. That is what produces the net increase.
	Applications this year are up on last year—20 per cent. up in maths, 10 per cent. up in English, 8 per cent. up in science, 4 per cent. up in modern foreign languages, 15 per cent. up in technology, and 3,200 have been recruited on the graduate teacher programme, yet there are still vacancies.
	The challenge is to reconcile those two sets of information. There are more teachers, there are more posts, and there are more vacancies in some areas. Not to accept that reality, and to think that sending out fewer bits of paper would solve the problem shows that six or seven months after the general election, the Opposition have still thought of nothing beyond that.

David Taylor: One piece of paper that my right hon. Friend sent to schools last week—I have visited several schools in the intervening period—was especially welcome. I do not support every jot and aspect of Government policy, but the tone and content of my right hon. Friend's call to teachers to focus on contact time and productive areas of activity and to withdraw from marginal areas was most welcome. It was a motivating influence in the staff rooms of the schools that I visited. I congratulate her on it.

Estelle Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That was the poster to which the hon. Member for Ashford referred. I had not intended to mention the poster, but as we have had the NUT magazine brandished about because it has a picture of the hon. Gentleman on the centre pages—I must remember not to open my copy—[Interruption.] He has not made page 3 yet; he is on the centre pages. The interesting thing about the poster is that it was not sent just from me. It was sent with the support of every teacher union and both head teacher unions. It was an honest attempt by Government and teacher representatives together to find the real answer to teacher work load, recruitment and retention.
	There is a challenge facing us. Teachers are working harder than they have ever worked before. More is being asked of them than ever before. More is being demanded, more is expected, and more is being achieved. When people choose to work in a job as important as teaching, that is what they sign up to. What they do day in, day out makes a difference. We have a choice. We can take away some of the aspects that have caused a burden and led to increased standards, such as the literacy hour, the numeracy hour, the excellence in cities programmes and key stage 3—all of which featured in those pieces of paper that we sent out in the past year—or we can look at the tasks that teachers have historically done and should not be doing.
	The PWC report is absolutely in the public domain, and I would be surprised if anyone participating in the debate has not read it. It found—this is the key point in the poster—that 20 per cent. of the tasks that teachers are doing could be done by somebody else. That includes everything from filling in forms that they do not have to fill in, to dinner duty, bus duty, collecting dinner money, washing the paint pots and beyond.
	I shall be dead straight about the issue. We must take some decisions about teacher work load, but I will not take away the literacy hour, the numeracy hour, key stage 3, performance management or the excellence in cities programmes, because it is those that have made the difference. I applaud the teacher representatives for coming together with the Government, acknowledging the issues, and working with us to try to take away the tasks that could be better done by other people. That resulted in a poster. Okay, I made myself the subject of a cheap joke by the Opposition spokesman. So be it. But we are engaged in a broader and more serious debate about modernising and reforming the profession so that it can hang on to what it should be doing and free up teacher time to do that better. I am delighted that the poster was well received in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Phil Willis: In her spirit of honesty, will the Secretary of State accept that in the region of 289,000 teachers are qualified but not in our classrooms, 70,000 of whom have been in our classrooms during the past five years who are aged under 50 and who would be a ready source of recruitment for our schools, yet she does not know where they are and is making no attempt to attract them back? What will she do to ensure that that huge multi-million pound resource is not simply lost to the teaching profession but recruited directly to our schools?

Estelle Morris: Some of them are in the Chamber at this moment. However, I want standards to continue to rise, so I shall keep the two of us out of the classroom. The hon. Gentleman has made that point before, and I am happy to consider it. We have spent a lot of money and expended much effort on teacher recruitment and retention and I would not wilfully turn my back on anything that could help us. One of his better jokes in the Chamber was to brandish a letter that he had received from the Department inviting him to go back into teaching because he was down as someone who had recently left. That was a better joke than that of the hon. Member for Ashford. I think that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) would generously admit that that showed that we were doing what we could where we had the data to write to former teachers. However, if he knows of ways in which we could do more, I should be happy to consider them.
	I want to concentrate on the matter for a few minutes because the statistics are important. Every time I open the paper—sometimes I do not have to open it because it is on the front page—there is another figure that almost bemuses one about teachers, whether in or out of the profession. There is an issue about retention, and I am not avoiding that. I want to come on to why teachers leave. Some leave because the profession is tougher than when they joined a number of years ago, and we must acknowledge that. But consider what happens at the moment.
	Of those who start teacher training, 17 per cent. do not finish, and the drop-out rate for graduates as a whole is about the same. Teacher training is tougher because it is tied to a professional qualification; the training is more demanding. If someone does not want to teach, it is almost no good finishing the course because a teaching certificate is not a generic qualification. Therefore, 17 per cent. of those who are recruited never finish, and some of those do not want to and are not good enough. That is fine because I do not want them. If they are not good enough and they fail, keep them out. The job would be too tough if they did not want to do it. I do not say this lightly, but I do not overworry if they or the universities make such a decision.
	Of those who qualify, 80 per cent. are still there four years later, and 95 per cent. of those who gain qualified teacher status will, at some point in their working life, teach. They might not have done so in the first four years. They might have gone abroad. Strangely enough, they might have taught in the independent sector and so not appear in our statistics.
	I say no more than this. For a profession still to have 80 per cent. of those who qualify in the profession four years later, for 95 per cent. to use that teaching qualification at some point during their working life, and for 13,000 of those who leave each year to come back is not a bad record and probably stands well against any other profession, but there is more to be done.
	There is a real issue about retention and recruitment, but although it might serve Opposition policies, it serves not one child, parent, head teacher, teacher or governor for the issue to be blown up beyond the challenge that we already face. I am not, for a minute, saying that the hon. Member for Ashford did that, but the only statistic that we heard from the Opposition was the old one—I do not know whether it was 60 per cent. or 80 per cent., as it changes from time to time—relating to not teaching. The only solution that we heard was, "Don't send out as much paperwork." The solutions cost more than that. Better policies and better worked-out ways of moving forward are needed. When we considered the matter, we came up with bursaries, golden hellos, training salaries, wiping off student loans, and keeping people in teaching by offering them professional support. Those policies have resulted in more people coming into teaching than at any time this decade.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Estelle Morris: I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) and then to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs).

Tony Cunningham: Many quotes from head teachers have been bandied around this afternoon. Let me tell the House about a head teacher in a school in my constituency, who said to me that the quality of year 7 pupils coming from primary school to secondary school is higher now than he has ever known it to be. Is that not a direct result of this Government's policies in recent years, and particularly of the introduction of literacy and numeracy hours?

Estelle Morris: The story that my hon. Friend tells is exactly the one that I hear from head teachers and parents almost everywhere I go. He will know that that was not the story one year into the strategy. When I visited primary schools then, things were fairly tough. The schools did not want us to be so prescriptive, and they wanted to continue to do what they had done year after year, which had led to four out of five children not reaching the required standard. I applaud the profession for having accepted the strategy and for having been courageous enough, when it saw that it worked, to admit that it was wrong and that the strategy has done well. There are hardly any head teachers in this country who are not pleased that this strategy was introduced. We must remember that, had the Tories been in power during those years, there would have been no literacy strategy and no numeracy strategy. That is the central prescription that I defend. Those initiatives were introduced to ensure that those who might not otherwise have considered best practice had to do so, and they learned in due course from evidence that it works.

Damian Green: rose—

Estelle Morris: As I promised, I shall give way to the hon. Member for East Antrim, and then I shall make progress.

Roy Beggs: As a former teacher, vice-principal, and currently chairman of a board of governors, it is my experience that young teachers coming through now are better qualified and even more committed than in the past. Does the Secretary of State feel that policies pursued by governing bodies could further assist in the retention of young women teachers who want to maintain teaching experience in the classroom and have an opportunity to spend more time raising young families?

Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I feel that, across the whole labour market, women and men ought to have that opportunity. That is more of a challenge in teaching than in other areas because parents tend to want continuity, especially at primary level. If one were to stop 10 parents in the street and ask them whether, in order to give women the choice of part-time work, they would agree to their child having two teachers during the week rather than one, there would be a real debate. That is one of the extra demands that we must face when considering flexible working. Some 80 per cent. of the teaching work force are women, and it is the responsibility of the teaching profession—and my responsibility—to do what we can to offer that flexibility, but, at the same time, to try to make sure that we offer continuity, especially for little ones who are at school.

Damian Green: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. Like her, I do not like intervening on Front-Bench speeches, but I am trying to prevent her from inadvertently misleading the House. She will be aware that literacy and numeracy hours were being piloted before 1997. Had they proved a success, a Conservative Government would no doubt have carried on with them. Therefore, the sharp line that she seeks to draw is simply not there.

Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman must face up to two facts. I do not believe that any Tory Government would have implemented a national strategy for literacy and numeracy; they would not have found the resources. He must also accept that, even if they had implemented the literacy and numeracy strategy nationally—that was not in the Conservative manifesto in 1997—it would have been centralist and prescriptive. They would also have had to send out reams of paper to schools. That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman has just told us that he would not do, so it is not unreasonable for me to assume that his only policy to aid the recruitment and retention of teachers is not to send out all the bits of paper that he referred to earlier. Let me tell him what those bits of paper are. They are the key stage 3 strategy, the literacy and numeracy strategies and the papers on performance management. He cannot have it both ways.
	At first, developing the literacy and numeracy strategy meant being centralist and rather prescriptive and sending out paper, much of which was about extra funding. The strategy then became embedded and, having learned best practice, teachers were allowed to get on with it.

Tom Levitt: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Estelle Morris: No. The House will agree that I am taking far too much time.
	I want to touch on two further issues. The first is teachers' pay, which is the source of the present dispute in London. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Ashford say that he does not agree with teachers taking industrial action—or industrial action that damages children. However, if teachers do not do their job, that damages children. It seems from what he said last Thursday that he was bordering on supporting the NUT strike in London—so be it.
	Let us consider what has happened to teachers' pay in London. In general, pay for good, experienced teachers has risen by 30 per cent. since 1997. However, a teacher in London in the second year of the profession will get a 13.2 per cent. pay increase in September this year, because we have shortened the spine. Every teacher in London in the second year of the profession will get that rise, and it will not be spread over two years. Every teacher in London in the sixth year of the profession will get a 15 per cent. pay increase. By September, teachers who started teaching in London when we were elected in 1997 will earn 63 per cent. more than they did then.
	Many teachers are worth their weight in gold, but in terms of delivering on public sector pay, we have rewarded them financially more than the Tories ever did. We have not staged pay increases; we have accepted every single recommendation of the STRB; we have introduced a threshold and we have seen a 30 per cent. pay increase over seven years. However, unlike any other serious pay increase in my memory of working in education, it has been accompanied by steady, sustained investment and a strong economy. Steady, sustained pay and investment in education have brought about current standards. That is what matters.

David Chaytor: Are we not now discussing the bottom line to the debate about teaching recruitment and standards? Is it not a fact that, as the title of a Conservative website suggests, under the last Conservative Government, education spending was slashed year on year and as a proportion of GDP? Under this Government, has not spending increased in each of the past three years? However, does my right hon. Friend accept that some OECD countries, such as Finland and Canada, which perform better than we do have much higher education spending? Can she give a commitment that she will continue to push for higher levels in the United Kingdom as well?

Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend is right. Yes, other countries—strangely enough, some of them do not perform as well as we do—spend a higher percentage of their GDP on education. He will be aware of our manifesto commitment to increase investment in education year on year. He referred to the Tory years. The only time that the Tories increased education spending as a proportion of GDP was when GDP fell. The increase tended to be the result of poor outturns and poor productivity and not because the then Government decided to invest more out of generosity or a commitment to education.
	I also wish to refer to pupil behaviour, which represents a real challenge not just to teachers, but to the whole of society. I tend to think that teachers reap the ill wind of the breakdown of discipline in many areas of our community and society. Some people do not give the issue much thought. We bemoan youth crime and the problem of drugs and their availability to young people, but those children end up in someone's classroom on Monday morning. That is the nature of the challenge facing schools, and we have to do all that we can to support teachers.
	Although we have done a great deal, by no stretch of the imagination have we conquered the problem. In some schools, where the children suffer multiple forms of deprivation, are often subject to community and family breakdown and face the temptations of drugs being available on the streets in a way that they were not when we were young, and where there is huge family and pupil mobility, the challenge of getting behaviour right is more difficult than ever before. Our approach to the problem is to invest £600 million over three years on improving behaviour. That is why we have 1,000 learning support units and 1,500 learning mentors. That is why we have worked to ensure that excluded children no longer receive only two hours of education every week.
	I will not accept from any Tory Member an assertion that before 1997 the Tory Government spent a penny farthing or expended an ounce of energy to support teachers in coping with problems of pupil behaviour. They did not. We have invested, and much of our investment has brought about good results, but we are not there yet—nowhere near. Ofsted has reminded us that although behaviour did not deteriorate this year, neither did it improve, and two years ago it declined. There is a real problem with no easy solutions. The Government have a responsibility, but so do mothers, fathers, families and community leaders.

Helen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to improve pupil behaviour is to use more classroom assistants to support and assist teachers? Some of the work I saw last week in Dallam community primary school, which is in a deprived area of my constituency, shows what can be achieved when classroom assistants are involved in helping pupils to modify their behaviour and they take some of the burden off teachers.

Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend is, as ever, right. Adults with a range of skills are needed in schools, and that is precisely what the poster was about. Schools in our communities need good teachers and good leaders most of all, but if we can supplement them with learning mentors and other adults with a range of skills, we have a chance of conquering what is often a vast cycle of deprivation in some of our most disadvantaged communities.
	The Government seek to be judged. We will be judged on whether our investment and policies lead to children in our schools achieving better exam results and emerging as more rounded citizens, ready to take their place in the world. I am immensely proud of our teachers and all those who work in our schools. Between 1998 and 2001, key stage 2 English results rose by 10 percentage points, maths by 12 percentage points, GCSE results by more than 2 percentage points, and A-levels by 16 percentage points, and the number of students leaving school with no GCSEs fell by half a percentage point. That achievement is in large part due to the hard, solid work of everyone who works in our schools, but the Government have played a key role in leadership, innovation, investment and support.
	The Opposition may not want to believe me. Let them look at the reports by PISA—the programme for international student assessment—and Ofsted. We have better teachers, more satisfactory lessons taught and higher standards than ever before. Not only do we have the finest ever generation of teachers, but we now have an education system that is raising its sights and increasing its expectations. My vision is to have an education system that starts in the early years and runs throughout schooling so that children leave school committed to lifelong learning; a system that gives young people opportunities for further and higher education; a system in which everyone understands that it is both their right and their obligation to be committed to learning.
	We have played a part. There is much of which are proud and much for which we are immensely thankful to those who work in our schools and education institutions. We know that we have not got there yet, but we have made progress from a very low starting point in 1997.

David Rendel: I was pleased to hear—and to some extent impressed by—the Secretary of State's support for teachers, but I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) did not offer such support in his opening speech. I was also disappointed by his hardly mentioning higher or further education. He merely offered criticism, and seemed to think that by far the most important aspect of the higher education crisis is that the Government's review will be published rather later than was expected. I, too, am disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to push forward their review, and that so many people remain uncertain about their financial position on going to university, but there is much more to the higher education crisis than the slowness of publication of the Government's review.
	I want to pick up on some of the Secretary of State's comments on teachers. Teachers, lecturers and others involved in education should be congratulated. They work very hard in often difficult and trying circumstances, and usually to the highest standards. I am disappointed that the Conservatives have chosen to talk about a crisis in education. The Government might not be delivering on their side of the bargain, but teachers certainly are—despite the fact that there are too few of them, despite their being the most audited, inspected and regulated teachers in Europe, and despite the Government's failure to invest adequate resources.
	Too often, our teachers are undervalued and talked down to by politicians. The Conservatives were as guilty of that as new Labour is. The approach has been to name and shame, rather than to value and encourage. Is it any wonder that teachers resort to industrial action when the Government deny them the professional status that they deserve?

Patrick McLoughlin: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the job of teachers will be made easier by the policy of legalising cannabis use, which, I believe, he intends to follow?

David Rendel: As a matter of fact, a lot of things would probably be made easier. Certainly, the legalisation of cannabis—if it takes place—is one way in which some of the problems associated with our young people could be reduced.
	During my party's recent serious and mature debate in Manchester, the point was repeatedly made that a lot of the problems associated with drugs stem from the fact that we treat alcohol and tobacco—comparatively dangerous drugs—in an entirely different way from cannabis, which is less dangerous. If the Conservatives are not prepared to address the problem seriously and maturely, so much the worse for them.

David Chaytor: The hon. Gentleman said that there are too few teachers, and that more are needed in the classroom. How many additional teachers—over and above the 10,000 promised in the Labour manifesto—would a Liberal Democrat Government provide? How much would that cost, and has the cost been budgeted for?

David Rendel: The answer is 5,000, and the cost was budgeted for.

David Chaytor: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Liberal Democrats would provide 15,000 additional teachers in total, and if so what would be the cost?

David Rendel: We would provide 5,000 over and above the Labour party's proposal. I do not know the precise cost off the top of my head, but it was included in our manifesto. If the hon. Gentleman is determined to have the exact figure, he can look it up or I can write to him.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in Sheffield, the Liberal-Democrat controlled council has taken on 800 extra teachers whom the local newspaper said that it would not touch with a bargepole? Does not that strategy smack of desperation on the part of the council, and show that the Liberal Democrats do not know which way they are going?

David Rendel: I am afraid that I did not understand that question, and we have taken long enough over interventions as it is.
	Is it any wonder that we are witnessing a terrific recruitment and retention problem, given that the Government are denying up to 90 per cent. of schools the freedom to innovate? The other 10 per cent. will get the freedom to innovate only on the say-so of the Secretary of State.
	Our education system is failing. The Government are letting it down because the concept of employability lies at the heart of their education and skills policy. Even if one accepts that narrow definition of what education is about, it is clear that the Government have failed. Last year, half our 16-year-olds failed to achieve the Government's benchmark of five good GCSEs, and 30,000 pupils left school without a qualification between them. There are 160,000 16 to 18-year-olds who are not in work, training or education. What is the Government's answer to that problem? It is the new deal.
	I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which considered the National Audit Office report only the other day. That report found that 30 per cent. of people leaving the new deal programme have no recorded or known destination. The report also found:
	"many of those who participated in the programme and found employment would have found a job anyway because of natural labour market turnover, the help available through other employment programmes, and the general expansion of employment in the economy."
	There are two specific problems, and the first is the failure to invest enough. In their first term, the Labour Government spent even less on education, as a proportion of national wealth, than the Conservatives managed under John Major—4.6 per cent., compared with 5 per cent. I shall give some examples of the results.
	Official figures show that £754 million needs to be spent on priority 1 school repairs, which are defined as urgent work that will prevent the immediate closure of premises, and/or address an immediate high risk to the health and safety of occupants, and/or remedy a serious breach of legislation. I accept the Secretary of State's contention that the problem has existed for some years. We have had under-investment for many years, and not only for the past five. However, this Government have failed to pick up on the problem sufficiently quickly.
	Moreover, figures from the House of Commons Library show that public funding per student in higher education fell year on year during this Government's first term. By 2003-04, real-terms public-sector funding per student will be 7 per cent. lower than when the Conservatives were in power.
	The second problem is the dead hand of central control. The Government want to run education from Whitehall—or, rather, from Downing street. The Education Bill now before the House of Lords is based on the novel proposition that more regulation equals more freedom to innovate. Clause 1 defines the Bill's purpose, stating that it is to
	"facilitate the implementation by qualifying bodies of innovative projects that may in the opinion of the Secretary of State contribute to the raising of educational standards achieved by children in England."
	That is, freedom will be benevolently bestowed on the say-so of the Secretary of State—but only for a few, as only 10 per cent. of schools will win earned autonomy. The Government insist that it is all for our own good, as happens in all cases of benevolent authority, and that we need not worry about the Government misusing the powers, because they would not do that. Of course, it is not in our hands to determine who might use such powers in future. Liberal Democrats believe that all schools other than those under special measures should be given the freedom to innovate.
	The two fundamental flaws in Government policy—the failure to invest and the dead hand of central control—have led to several other problems.

Tony Cunningham: It is interesting that, in outlining their education policy, Liberal Democrat Members criticise the Conservatives' policy, or lack of policy. In Cumbria, the county council is run by a Conservative-Liberal alliance. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me which of the policies he agrees with?

David Rendel: I am not sure which policies the hon. Gentleman means. If he is asking whether I agree with Liberal Democrat policies or Conservative policies, I usually tend to agree with Liberal Democrat policies.
	I return to the problems created by the two fundamental flaws in Government policy. First, there is the crisis in the teaching profession. The 2000–01 Ofsted report reveals that problems in recruiting and retaining teachers have worsened during the past two years. Provisional figures show that the vacancy rate in English secondary schools has doubled in the past year, and in recent years the maintained system has lost around 10 per cent. of its teachers each year. More than one in five newly qualified teachers leave the profession during their first three years in teaching. Those problems are particularly acute in London and the south-east, owing to high housing costs, and in areas of high socio-economic disadvantage.
	Rising pupil numbers and increased resource availability will create a demand for an extra 70,000 teachers by 2004, dwarfing the 10,000 promised by new Labour in its manifesto. Meanwhile, teachers are leaving in droves. Why? In response to a National Union of Teachers survey, 82 per cent. of teachers who had left the profession said that an important factor in their decision was the pressure of the work load. Fifty-six per cent. felt undervalued and undermined by negative publicity and constant criticism, which is stoked by the Government and the press. Sadly, teaching is now seen as a low-status profession. It never was in the past.
	The Government's response is fast track, which last year cost the Department for Education and Skills £4,630,058 but recruited only 111 teachers into training. Ten of those have already left, several will not enter teaching and some have already accepted posts in the private sector. The cost per entrant is a staggering £46,000. The cost of placing a student on a postgraduate certificate of education course through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service is £15.57. This year, the Government have allocated a further £8.53 million to the scheme.
	Another problem, which Conservative Members did not mention, relates to the teaching of mathematics, science and technology. Three years ago, about one in 10 secondary school maths teachers had no subject qualification beyond A-level. Now as many as 45 per cent. of staff teaching the subject to 11 to 14-year-olds have limited knowledge of maths and little or no training in the subject. Ofsted found that only 77 per cent. of teachers who teach some mathematics in secondary school have a post-A-level qualification in the subject. UCAS figures show a steady decline since 1997 in the number of applicants for courses in biological sciences, physical sciences and engineering and technology. We are getting into a vicious cycle, which is a real worry for the future. The figures amount to a 17 per cent. drop between 1997 and 2001, or 12,000 fewer applicants.
	That is ironic, given that creationism has been allowed to make a comeback in our school system. Will the situation at Emmanuel college in Gateshead be repeated as more schools come to rely on private funding? Is that the science teaching of the future? It is worrying that Sir Peter Vardy, the evangelical Christian entrepreneur who funds Emmanuel college, is investing £12 million in six other city academies. Science teaching is suffering enough without his intervention.

Andrew Turner: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Liberal Democrats would ban that viewpoint being taught in schools alongside Darwinism?

David Rendel: Personally, I do not regard creationism as scientific in any sense, and I certainly would not want it taught as a scientific explanation of how the world was created.
	Perhaps the worst problems are in higher education, although it was the matter least mentioned by the Conservatives. Since the 1998 reforms, average student debt has doubled from about £3,000 to £6,000, according to the Barclays student debt survey. Students now expect to graduate with a five-figure debt of as much as £20,000 according to the National Union of Students. The situation is particularly bad for students on longer courses. The British Medical Association's annual survey of medical students' finances found that their average final-year debt had increased by 23.6 per cent. on the previous year, up to £13,350, and that more than 40 per cent. of final-year students had debts of more than £15,000. There is a further problem for students living in high-cost areas such as London.
	The National Audit Office report on student participation confirms that young people from poorer backgrounds are significantly less likely to participate in higher education. That is precisely the problem that the Government think that they need to address, but are failing to address. The NAO report states:
	"Since 1998-99 . . . final removal of the means tested grant is likely to have widened the gap between social classes."
	What did the Labour party come to power for in 1997? Was it to widen the gap between social classes? That seems absurd, but, sadly, it has happened.
	Forty-seven per cent. of full-time students now have to work in term time. According to the NUS, the average number of hours worked per week is 11. Research carried out by Newcastle university suggests that 35 per cent. of its students who have jobs could have achieved a higher grade for the year if they had not been in employment.
	Two consequences follow. First, debt and the fear of debt are a big disincentive to young people who want to enter higher education. They also have an impact on the quality of students' university education once they get there. There are solutions, however. In Scotland, tuition fees have been abolished and means-tested grants restored. In Wales, means-tested grants have been reintroduced for further and higher education students. That makes a difference, and we can see the results. According to the most recent UCAS figures, the number of Scottish students applying to Scottish universities is up by 8.8 per cent., while the number applying to English universities is down by 4.5 per cent. Scottish students are voting with their feet. The contribution of Scottish students to the overall increase in applications is disproportionately high, with an increase of 8.8 per cent. overall, compared with just 2.7 per cent. in England.

Tom Levitt: Under Liberal Democrat policy in Scotland, do not all students have to pay an exit fee on leaving university, whereas in England and Wales, half of all students do not pay such fees at all?

David Rendel: That is not true. The exit fee will be paid by approximately the same proportion of people, because it will be paid on the same means-tested basis.

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Rendel: No, I have given way enough. I need to make progress.
	The Government have announced a review of higher education. Indeed, the Prime Minister said recently in this Chamber:
	"I am very happy to congratulate the Welsh Assembly on its decision . . . We are looking at how we can achieve a fairer balance between the contribution the state makes and the contribution students make . . . We are looking particularly at how we can help poorer students"—[Official Report, 13 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 200-201.]
	That is good news. Let us hope that the review does just that.
	What about the famous 50 per cent. target? How is participation to be measured? Interestingly, we recently discovered exactly what the Government are going to do when they announced to the Public Accounts Committee something called the initial entry rate. Instead of looking at the proportion of 18 to 30-year-olds who are actually in higher education in 2010, when they come to measure the figure against their target, the Government are simply going to guess how many of that group will go into higher education at any time over the next 12 years. All that they will have to do is work out what increase they need to guess to meet their target, and, lo and behold, they will meet it. It could not be easier. That is not a calculation but simply guesswork.
	Where are we starting from? What is the figure now? The Public Accounts Committee revealed that the Government seriously overestimated the existing participation rate. In her evidence to the then Education and Employment Committee a year ago, the Minister then responsible for higher education put the figure at 44 per cent., which was 6 per cent. off the Government's target. In evidence to the PAC, however, the permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Skills has admitted that the real figure is 41 per cent., 9 per cent. off their target.
	Not surprisingly, the Government are gradually including more and more groups to meet their target. Government statements have variously defined the target as "50 per cent. going to university", "50 per cent. entering higher education", "50 per cent. having the opportunity to enter higher education" and "50 per cent. having higher-education experiences", whatever that may mean. Perhaps it refers to an open day to help people decide whether they want to enter higher education.
	There are real problems in our education system, but there are things that we can do about them. We must remove the dead hand of central interference, and end the destructive notion that Downing street always knows best what is right for our children. We must value the professionalism of teachers and academic staff, and trust them to make their own judgments. We must provide genuine freedom, removing the constraints that hold back innovation and creativity throughout the system. Above all, if the original policy was "education, education, education", surely what the Government must now do is invest, invest, invest.

David Miliband: I am delighted to be able to contribute to this debate. I hope to describe some of the changes being made in education in South Shields, but also to illuminate some of the problems that I think should be the subject of national debate. This is an opportunity for some honest talking. I welcomed the tone of the speech delivered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
	I am sorry that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) has had to leave. When I last appeared on a television programme with him, his first answer was so long that I had no chance to make my own contribution at the end. Having also spent some 50-odd hours in a Standing Committee with him, I must say that my sorrow at the fact that he could not open the debate for his party today was tempered by the thought that, as a result of his modesty in not speaking, I might have a chance to speak myself.
	I deplore the unremitting negativism of the Opposition motion and also the tone of the speech made by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). According to my calculations, he spent about 30 minutes denouncing everything about the education system, 12 seconds saying that his policies were under review and could not be revealed, and about a minute producing warm waffle about his long-term aspirations. I wonder what message that sends to the 430,000 teachers in the education system. I wonder what prospect they see of politicians having much to add to their daily work—sometimes a daily grind—given the negativism of the hon. Gentleman's approach.
	The hon. Gentleman gloried in the fact that he is now best friends with the National Union of Teachers. In fact, his observations reminded me more of the NUT as it was when I was at school in 1981 or 1982 than of the more balanced statements that have emerged from some NUT leaders recently. I also think it unworthy of him to denounce achievements in maths in the motion and then to praise the national numeracy strategy, even claiming at one point that he had invented it. I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies: unlike some of his colleagues, he did not call for the Secretary of State's resignation. None the less, the word "crisis" was bandied about several times, not just in the motion but in the hon. Gentleman's speech. Such hyperbole does no one any good.
	Those of us who are interested in education have a common interest in ensuring that the fact that it is not currently appearing on the front pages of the newspapers does not mean that its importance is lost. I find it regrettable that the Leader of the Opposition has only once, to my recollection, chosen to raise education at Prime Minister's Question Time; those of us who care about it should make sure that it remains a top legislative and budgetary priority as we approach the Budget statement and the spending review.
	My perspective is framed by experience in South Shields and the borough of South Tyneside. The area has a strong sense of community pride. It would not deny the existence of its problems, not least the second highest unemployment in Britain, but it has enormous potential. That is brought home to me every time I visit one of the 30-odd schools in South Shields; I have visited more than half of them so far.
	The daily experience of education in South Tyneside simply does not tally with the picture presented by the hon. Member for Ashford. It tells a very different story—a different story about some of the things that are wrong, as well as about what is going well. The changes taking place in my constituency are significant and, in some cases, staggering. The delegated schools budget, which in 1996-97 was some £42 million, will next year rise to £64 million—a cash increase of more than 50 per cent. In concrete terms, that means more than £1,000 extra per pupil for books, computers and extra teachers, which are important for any thriving education system.
	Next year, primary schools will receive around £2,700 per pupil. Secondary schools will receive £3,200 per pupil—as I say, that is up by about £1,000. For the under-fives, the increase has gone from £1,800 per pupil in 1996–97 to some £2,500 per pupil next year. For secondary education for those over the age of 16, the increase is from £2,400 to over £3,500 next year. The hon. Member for Ashford, the shadow Secretary of State, called the funding figures a myth. They are certainly not a myth to the teachers and pupils in my constituency.
	The hon. Gentleman said that he agreed with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) that public service budgets should be protected. He should listen more carefully to his own leader who, in an interview in the Financial Times in December, slapped down the shadow Chancellor and made it clear that tax cuts came before public service investment. Someone else said, rightly, that the Conservatives' website—Conservatives slash education—is a better indicator of Conservative education policy than the warm words of the shadow Secretary of State.
	Another important aspect of educational improvement concerns the under-fives, where South Tyneside has traditionally had a strong record. One hundred per cent. of parents are offered a nursery place for their child. Some 88 per cent. take it up in a mix of public, private and voluntary provision. That has been supplemented for 2,000 families through the introduction of the sure start programme.
	On primary schools, which were an important part of the contribution by the shadow Secretary of State, 30-plus primary schools in South Shields have embraced the national literacy and numeracy strategy. Significantly for a constituency of socio-economic disadvantage, the primary schools perform better than the national average in the key stage 2 tests. In the past six months, there have been positive Ofsted reports on Marine Park and Harton junior schools. That is an indication of the trend.
	On teacher numbers, the situation outside London and the south-east is very different from that within it. There is a stable and committed teaching force in the north-east. Its work is complemented by 50 learning mentors and more than 190 classroom assistants, who take care of precisely the sort of bureaucracy and tasks that teachers do not want to do and in fact should not be doing, but who none the less make a vital contribution to dealing with some of the discipline problems that were mentioned in passing by the shadow Secretary of State. The learning mentors in Mortimore comprehensive school, which I visited last week, make a significant contribution to tackling some of the problems of poor discipline that are a serious issue for many children.
	There is no point in denying the significant strains connected with recruitment in some subjects, but that should not be used as a basis for denouncing the whole approach to teacher education. I thought that the facts presented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were compelling in that regard.
	In relation to adult skills, which the shadow Secretary of State did not mention at all, South Tyneside further education college has just been made one of the pathfinder centres of vocational excellence in Britain. About 16,000 students pass through its doors in any one year. Its specialism is marine studies; my constituency occupies the corner of the Tyne and the North sea.
	The college is doing important outreach work into the community. Some 1,500 adults now have access to community places for learning through learndirect, which has not been mentioned today and which was helped by the individual learning accounts, whose demise I regret.
	Those achievements are a tribute not only to the Government but to the thousands of people who work day in, day out—not just the teachers but the support staff—in schools in my constituency. They present a far more accurate picture of education in Britain than the overblown rhetoric of the Opposition, but it would be remiss of me to pretend that everything in the garden was rosy and that all the problems had been solved. That would be absurd. I would like to pick out four issues where local experience in South Tyneside can illuminate some national questions that need to be dealt with.
	The first relates to the need to raise expectations in secondary schools. As I mentioned earlier, primary school performance in South Tyneside now outstrips the national average, but in secondary schools there is a significant dip in performance. Sometimes there is a dip straight after the holidays for 11-year-olds. By the time they enter the first year of secondary school, we can see that they are being turned off education. Despite a recent positive Ofsted report on Harton comprehensive school in my constituency, there remains a huge issue about how we tackle a low expectation/low performance equilibrium in too many of our secondary schools.

Mark Hendrick: Could I bring to my hon. Friend's attention a recent example from a visit to a low-expectation primary school in my constituency, which is providing a refuge for many children who live in problem homes where the parents are on drugs or are unemployed and on benefit? The children are sneaking out of the house to go to the school, which has become a refuge. However, when they go to Ribbleton Hall high secondary school, they find attendance difficult because they are locked into a culture of low expectation. Could my hon. Friend comment on his experiences of that nature in his constituency?

David Miliband: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that interesting point. One of the significant things about English education that may be different from Scottish education is that the two transitions—first at 11 and then at 15 or 16—are points at which we lose far too many students from the education system. We lose their commitment and their interest. The example that my hon. Friend gives of pupils being given extra help up to the age of 11 who then slip back once they enter secondary school is a genuine problem in many constituencies. That lies behind some of the debate about the restructuring of the school year that has been started by hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning. Perhaps that will be one way of tackling the secondary dip, which is a significant problem.
	The Government took some important steps in the last Parliament to tackle the serious problem of low expectation: first, in relation to target setting, where the determination to set ambitious targets for schools and pupils has been important in raising expectations; and secondly, in their determination to tackle the problems at key stage 3. It is too simplistic to talk about extending the literacy and numeracy strategies from key stage 2 into key stage 3. However, some of the principles that underlie the key stage 2 strategy—above all, the determination to learn from best practice as it is implemented by teachers around the country and then to spread that best practice—give an important example of how central Government can play a useful role in our education system.
	At Mortimore comprehensive school, the maths teachers were clear that far from being over-regulation, the new key stage 3 strategy exposed them to best practice and helped them to improve their own provision.
	Having said that, I do not believe that we can be in the least complacent about expectations, especially in areas of socio-economic need. The culture of high expectations needs to be reinforced, not simply in schools but in homes and in the community. I am delighted that South Tyneside local education authority, which last year failed its Ofsted report and is now under new leadership, has put at the centre of its new vision statement a determination to have high expectations of itself, as well as of pupils and teachers. If we are to have a culture of high expectations, it must apply to every institution in the education system.
	It is also important to think long term. I wish to put on record some ideas that I think will be important in raising expectations, especially in areas where children do not have the exposure to university life that is perhaps the common experience elsewhere. First, in South Tyneside, two comprehensive schools are being closed to make way for a new school that is going to be opened in co-operation with the local further education college, creating a genuine 14-to-19 institution in the borough for the first time. That will break the divide at 16 which I believe does so much damage in the education system. That will contribute to a culture of staying on rather than dropping out.
	The second idea concerns the role of universities. Many of our inner-city areas that have the poorest achievement levels are side by side with pioneering universities that are at the cutting edge of science and social studies. The role of universities in areas of poor achievement needs to be looked at more closely. I understand that the university of Teesside now requires that every undergraduate mentor a young person in the Middlesbrough area. That sort of interaction between university and school students is to be applauded.
	I am pleased that the South Tyneside transformation commission, which was set up to consider the social and economic future of South Tyneside, is thinking about how to attract a university campus to the town. That would do a lot to raise expectations.
	The second issue concerns the balance of targeted and general spending. There have been undoubted gains from the Government's determination to focus on literacy and numeracy in curricular as well as budgetary terms. Ring-fenced budgets have helped to deliver the improvements in primary schools. However, the undoubted benefits of ring-fenced budgets should not blind us to the problems that that can cause for head teachers. Their enthusiasm for the Chancellor's largesse every year in sending money direct to schools, creating free money for them to use as they will, seems significant as we think about the spending decisions ahead. The flexibility exists for head teachers to deploy resources as they want rather than according to Government diktat. The reduction of the standards fund from 42 separate categories to only six is an important step in that regard.
	In the context of the teachers' pay discussions, it is important not to pretend that delegated budgets end the need for tough choices about where money should be spent. However, this is the right context in which to think about the arguments on performance-related pay and funding above the threshold. It is important to recognise and remember that the threshold payments are fully funded by central Government—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. The issue at stake is what happens above the threshold.
	Legitimate points are being made on both sides of the argument by good, committed head teachers and the Government that there must be a balance between ring-fenced funds and general expenditure. It is vital to have a dialogue between head teachers, who are committed and are proud of the way in which they implemented the Government's performance-related pay programme, and the Government, whose point is that, however much money there is, it will ultimately have to be deployed in different ways. There is enough common interest, given the extra money going into the system, to sort out the problem.
	The third issue concerns how we compensate for social disadvantage in the funding system. I welcome the expansion of the excellence in cities programme; the quibbling about whether education action zones fall within the programme or are separate is not to the point. The important point is that we are expanding targeted provision on areas of socio-economic disadvantage. It is significant that relative social mobility in this country has not changed in 100 years. That is the central challenge for education as we think forward to the spending review, because children from lower socio-economic classes are disadvantaged.
	In the context of higher education, I say to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) that the main reason why children from lower socio-economic classes do not go into education is not student finance but performance in secondary schools. The best predictor of entry into university is GCSE performance rather than anything else. Our first priority is to improve performance in secondary schools.
	The shadow Secretary of State did not mention training. I am disappointed that individual learning accounts were not sufficiently successful and did not overcome the problems that ultimately forced them to be closed down. The principle of ILAs, to empower adult learners, is absolutely right. Skills, however, need to be linked to work. The work of the north-east maritime and offshore cluster is determined to build a centre of excellence in offshore and estuarial industry in the north-east. There is a unique opportunity to create a regional and sectoral approach to the revival of individual learning accounts, and I hope that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), will look favourably on this in future.
	On recent visits to France and Germany, I was struck by the huge national debate about the failings of the education system. The shadow Secretary of State told us about his visit to Germany; when he flashed open the issue of The Teacher, I saw the headline "Deutschland uber Alles" as a description of Germany's education system.

Andrew Turner: Unter.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Unter.

David Miliband: I thank the hon. Gentlemen for their correction. In this context, it is not "Deutschland uber Alles". The evidence is that the UK is doing better for 15-year-olds, which is a significant compliment to our teaching force.
	It really takes gall for the party that cut education spending to below 5 per cent. of gross domestic product to complain about the money available for teacher retention. It is the ultimate hypocrisy for a party that completely ignored the needs of inner-city education now to quibble about how education action zones are organised. It is record-breaking amnesia for the party that took us to 42nd in the world education league now to lecture us about standards. It is also bad politics for the party that was 40 per cent. behind the Government in its education performance in the last MORI opinion poll to be all bluster and no humility. It is time for that party to listen a little more, and lecture a little less.
	In the end, there is no value in an Opposition who cannot see improved performance in front of their own eyes. The Government can set a better example—listening, learning and adapting their policies on the basis of what is happening on the ground. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to some of my ideas.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Having listened to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband), I wonder whether there is an urban-rural divide on education and skills. When individual learning accounts crashed and disappeared, many people were disfranchised. My constituency covers much of rural Somerset. My constituents could not get to Taunton, where the providers were located. ILAs had provided money for transport, but when it was no longer provided many of my constituents lost their places and, through no fault of their own, could not continue their further education. That problem has not been rectified. People have to travel 40 miles to a place of further education, without proper rural infrastructure.

Tom Levitt: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman praise a Labour initiative and that he wants ILAs to return in improved form. What provision did the Conservative Government make for his constituents before ILAs were in place?

Ian Liddell-Grainger: ILAs were a complete disaster—and they were got rid of because they were a disaster. If the hon. Gentleman had listened more carefully, he would have realised that his party disfranchised a major part of my constituency. I can assure you that people working in further education, especially FE colleges, are extremely cross about that. It is your fault.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The word "you" can be used only in respect of the Chair.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise, too, to the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt). I meant that the failure was due to his Government's inactivity.
	People from rural areas being excluded from further education is not the only problem. In one part of my patch, there is only one college. A child who is excluded from that college has nowhere else to go. Children cannot get to another school, because there is no other school in the area. Somerset county council has tried to provide for excluded children, but because resources are tight—the position in rural areas has worsened over the past few years—no provision has been made for children who cannot be taught in mainstream schools.
	One might say that few children from rural areas are affected, but 124 of the 1,200 pupils at West Somerset college have special needs, which gives us some idea of the scale of the problem. There is no easy way of excluding children. We are told that they can go to their nearest further education college, but in my constituency Bridgwater college is nearly 40 miles away, and the lack of funding means that it cannot attract teachers. For years, every school in my area has applied for teachers, but simply cannot get them. Rural people may have quality of life but they lack the ability to further a career if they are ambitious. Such people understandably go to urban areas, but that does not help the rural areas that I represent.
	All the colleges in my area are applying for special status. Resources are so depleted that they feel that they must raise the £50,000 required to apply for that status. One has acquired it, two more are in the process of doing so, and the other three are starting to raise the money. Local businesses in west Somerset raised £65,000 in three weeks. People's concern about the quality of their children's education was such that they felt that they had no choice but to put their hand in their own pocket as the Government will not provide the money.
	What will happen to the colleges in my area? There are three: Somerset college of arts and technology, Bridgwater college and Richard Huish college. They are now in competition owing to the lack of resources. SCAT in Taunton has decided that it cannot compete with Bridgwater college and has cut courses and numbers. Bridgwater college is doing well as it has a tie-up scheme with the University of Plymouth—complicated or what?
	Surely we must keep education simple so that children know where they will be from start to finish. If they do not go on to university, they should be able to follow their chosen course of further education in their local area. However, they cannot do that in our area because of uncertainty about courses.
	The lack of rural transport affects the competition between colleges. It is difficult for students to attend one of the best colleges because the bus service is so limited. Unless the service is subsidised by the college or the county council—neither can do so—pupils cannot attend all their courses, which is a major concern.
	I have a few other concerns to raise, although I realise that many Members want to speak. I have received many representations from teachers in my constituency about the gathering of postcodes and children's names for the school census. Until 1999, the census was based on unique pupil numbers. I do not disagree with the collection of information—it is right to find out where pupils are and to assess whether high mobility has an effect on their achievement—but why do the Government need to collect the names, addresses and postcodes of individual children? When I questioned that, I was told that the data would be widely used by DFES policy divisions, other Departments, local education authorities, external agencies and education researchers.
	Teachers have rightly pointed out that if a child's name is retained on a database, his or her chance of getting a job or of securing further education may be prejudiced by problems that are not relevant to their situation. Teachers question whether they should provide such information. One of them pointed out that to do so might breach the European convention on human rights; that is a great concern to teachers in my area.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that an even more insidious aspect of the annual school census is the collection of ethnicity data on every pupil at a maintained school? The Government have made no commitment to wipe such information at the end of pupils' school careers.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I agree with my hon. Friend, although ethnicity information is not as important in my constituency as it is in some areas.
	What safeguards are there for our children? How can we ensure that children's careers are not blighted, through no fault of their own, by leaked databases? If the secret service cannot prevent that in Northern Ireland, what hope is there for the DFES?
	There has been much discussion of who is providing what. I discovered the learning and skills framework for action in the minutes of the meeting of the south west regional assembly held in Exeter on 1 March. Are regional development agencies and the regional assemblies involved in education? It seems that they are. The South West Regional Development Agency has a skills and learning select committee on advanced engineering, which has met eight times. Its aim is
	"to ensure the highest quality"
	in sectors such as nuclear power generation, automotive, marine, aerospace and petrochemicals, but we do not train children in those sectors in our area, so why are we spending money on such matters? I also wonder why Government money that should go to teachers is being spent on the learning skills intelligence module of the regional observatory—I did not know that we had one in the south-west.

Andrew Miller: On nuclear power, I refer the hon. Gentleman to Berkeley research centre, which is just up the road from his constituency and which does excellent work and needs trained staff.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right to mention that centre, but why do the regional assembly and the RDA have to do such things? Why cannot such things be done through further education and organisations dedicated to teaching, as opposed to unelected quangos?
	I wonder about adult skills in the workplace. The RDA has now had vital discussions with 137 participants, and with 70 participants across the region. That is education by committee. We are all concerned about education, and if the Government want education to be taken seriously, they should not educate by committee but involve the people who understand—the teachers—not the leaders of various district and county councils.
	Finally, I was amazed to notice that £3.7 million is being spent on considering where money should be spent on education in our region. Why is the Department for Education and Skills or the Government office for the south-west not doing so?
	There is an education gap between urban and rural areas and resources are not reaching the children in the way that they should. In my experience, teachers are incredibly worried that there are not enough of them to provide the service in the areas that need it most, because people in those areas have the least choice in this country and are least able to get where they need to go.

Andrew Miller: In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) criticised the Government for referring in their amendment to investment, but the debate is about investment—investment in the next generation. If we fail to make that investment, we will fail the next generation. In parlance that you and I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I do not expect you to arbitrate on it from your position—the hon. Gentleman's problem was that he opened the batting, but fell on his wicket at an early stage. He missed a series of things that are happening, but my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) and other hon. Members helpfully informed told the House of the positive things that are happening in their constituencies.
	I have been desperately concerned about the problems of a series of schools in my constituency—some of which date back to the beginning of the 20th century, and some even before that—whose facilities were no longer adequate to provide a modern education service. The imaginative public-private partnership that has been put together represents an exceptionally good investment, and I look forward to seeing the project develop.
	There is an area of real deprivation in the town centre. Hon. Members who understand the chemical industry will understand that, close to chemical plants, there is now always a belt of housing where people live in relative deprivation. Years ago, those people commuted to the plants, but now, because of technology, the industry pays much higher wages to fewer people, and the people in that little belt of housing often find themselves socially excluded in various ways, not least in education. The education action zone in that community is having a profound effect on the quality of education.
	A head teacher, who had complained to me about previous problems, told me how grateful he was that, as a result of the EAZ, he had six classroom assistants. He needs six classroom assistants. Many schools in better-off areas do not need such support, but he is dealing with a number of children who come from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds, so additional investment is desperately needed. The sure start programme is having similar effects in that community, as a result of real investment in the next generation.
	My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have been in correspondence about provision for a further education college that is in recovery. The business process that was being applied to the management of resources was not adequate. The Government, through the Further Eduction Funding Council, had to intervene and take remedial action. That action is leading to positive responses, including plans being drawn up for new college buildings.
	Some Labour Members feel nostalgic about the Grange centre in my constituency. Before becoming an FE college, it was a secondary modern school that was attended by none other than my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. I say to my right hon. Friend in the kindest way that I look forward to his classroom being demolished and replaced by a modern institute appropriate to the needs of students. The college has recently been inspected. It is now achieving standards that were not reached under the previous regime.
	I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards will visit my constituency in the near future. He will see two examples of the effects of investment. First, he will see an almost brand new primary school, Brookside, which has been open for only a few months. It has brought together—[Interruption.] Not that Brookside. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) clearly spends his early evenings watching soaps. Brookside primary school brought together two schools that were in a poor physical state. As a result of a rebuild programme, some imaginative architecture and some brilliantly imaginative teachers, education is being delivered in a brand new school that is a credit to everyone involved.
	I am extremely proud that it is a Labour Government who have at last put resources into the Hammond school for dance, which is on the outskirts of Chester. For the first time, moneys will go to support state pupils at the Hammond school. With the greatest respect to my colleagues who represent constituencies in the south-east, it is about time that we saw such investment in the north of the country. It is the first time such investment has been made outside the south-east.
	Last Friday, I gave a public lecture at Chester college in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell). The college is participating in the training of 1,500 nurses. That is an exceptionally good use of the expansion of resources that has resulted from investment in higher and further education in my area.
	I agreed with a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). We must raise the profile of the teaching of science, mathematics and technology. We must enthuse school children about the exciting possibilities that those technologies will bring to them. I daily see a lack of understanding of science in the community, which impacts on people's judgments about things that surround them.
	On the positive side, work is being done by the Hadley centre on oceanographic research, about which children enthuse. The same is true of the work of the European Space Agency, NASA and Bob Ballard's research project in submarine activities in the United States. Such work is at the cutting edge of science and has a tangible dimension; we need to give our children access to such things to ensure that they understand where the cutting-edge technologies are taking us and why their involvement in practical science will be of benefit in future. Otherwise, a generation will grow up getting their science from pressure groups and so on; that generation's science will be based on a bigoted view, such as the creationism to which the hon. Member for Newbury referred, rather than proper research undertaken in the laboratory and the world around us.
	I would not stop the observations of people who regard themselves as creationists being explained to children, but I would use properly taught science to put those observations in context. For example, the next step above the one bearing the plaque about Charles I's trial in Westminster Hall contains a wonderful coral fossil; science can be used to explain cogently that that fossil is more than 200 million years old, not 4,000 years and a few days. Such science, taught properly in schools, can help to excite the next generation.
	The Government have done a huge amount to apply technology in schools. At Brookside school, which I mentioned earlier, the internet, including internet whiteboards, is an immensely powerful tool. We must make sure not only that our pupils are ready to grasp that tool but that our teachers are properly equipped to deal with those technologies and can pass on their benefits to their students.
	In conclusion, I am sure that the Under-Secretaries of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friends the Members for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) and for Wentworth (John Healey), are pressing their case firmly in the comprehensive spending review. I am sure that most Members would back them solidly to maintain the pressure for continued investment. The Government have made such investment in the past four and a half years, but if that does not continue, standards will decline. That point impacts on some of those made by the hon. Member for Newbury, who was right that people's perceptions of education are based on a system in which there has been poor investment for a couple of generations. The advances that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields sought to promote cannot take place unless we have a Government who continue to make a positive investment in the next generation.

Boris Johnson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. No Opposition Member wants to denigrate the teaching profession. I was briefly a teacher in Australia, and know how hard teaching is; I had a tough time of it. I shall shortly concentrate on an issue pertaining to my own constituency, but I cannot resist holding the Government to account for the manifest failings of their teaching policies.
	The Government promise, to which the Liberal Democrat spokesman alluded, has a hollow ring for those of us who have children in state education in inner London. The Government promised "Education, education, education," but last week, my children were not in education at all; they were knocking around at home. I have no hesitation in using my children as a political football, because they always use me as a football. The Government should apologise to those of us with children in state education in inner London; despite their promise of "Education, education, education", they have devolved it to us. What greater failure of government could there be than to precipitate the first strike of the National Union of Teachers in 30 years, resulting in my family having educate our children at home last Thursday?
	Anybody who listens to teachers, as I do in my constituency, and hears their horrendous tales of top-down control and having to fill in forms, knows that, contrary to the Government's assertions, the Opposition have good ideas for alleviating those problems.

Michael Foster: Name one.

Boris Johnson: Here is an idea for the man who wants to ban fox hunting, which I offer in all humility. It may not be as good as some of the brainy ideas of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband), who went on about benchmarking, best practice and socio-economic indicators—there was some good and interesting stuff about low expectation thresholds and so on—but I am genuinely interested in the Government's response to it. When I visit schools in my constituency, I am struck by the lack of something that teachers had when I was at school: respect, in the words of Ali G—[Interruption.] The groans of Government Members are interesting; I suspect that, sadly, they are congenitally opposed to the solution that I am about to give.
	Head teachers in my constituency tell me that they cannot oblige children to spend half an hour picking up crisp packets as punishment for a misdemeanour, because their parents will come to the school and get stroppy. They have no authority any more. It may be pompous of me to talk about respect in the classroom, but I think that, having taken the trouble of being elected to Parliament, I am allowed to be pompous. It is important to restore respect. I am earnest in wishing to know whether or not the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wentworth (John Healey), agrees that that is a fundamental problem in our schools.

Mark Hendrick: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of the kids at school today are the children of people of my generation? Twenty years ago, when my generation was looking for work, there were 4 million unemployed people; our generation did not get much respect from the previous Government. Kids today are the children of those parents.

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reiterating the old cry that it is all society's and, presumably, Mrs. Thatcher's, fault. Personally, however, I do not think that she is to blame. There has been a calamitous falling-off in the respect in which teachers are held. Teachers used to be people who did not just impart instruction, but were treated with dignity, honour and respect by their charges. It would be a good thing if that respect were restored. We should give back autonomy to teachers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said, as well as the ability to discipline children; we should restore the old assumption that teachers, not children or parents, tend to be in the right.

David Taylor: I thank the hon. Member for Pomposity on Thames for giving way. How did the previous Government, whom he supported, show respect for teachers, when they allowed class sizes to become unacceptably large and teachers to teach in schools, laboratories and classrooms that were 30, 40 or 50 years out of date? Only recently has that problem begun to be addressed.

Boris Johnson: It ill becomes the hon. Gentleman to return again, as his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) did, to the so-called derelictions of the Conservative Government, when it is the present Government who have produced the first NUT strike in 30 years and who are depriving my children of the education that they promised. [Interruption.] I will not take sedentary interventions from a chap of whose identity I have no knowledge.
	I promised to speak about a problem pertaining specifically to my constituency, Henley, and to south Oxfordshire, so I shall pass over my other objections to the Government's generally lax policy on education, particularly their divisiveness and chippiness in respect of Oxbridge admissions. The Government allegedly intend to introduce a 67 per cent. quota for admissions from the maintained sector. I should be interested to hear the comments of the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wentworth, on that.
	I am delighted to see the Minister in his seat. We have become old friends in the course of the unfolding catastrophe of the individual learning accounts. Some hon. Members may not be familiar with the disaster of the ILA affair. This is how it went: from September 2000, anyone could avail him or herself of £200 to cover the cost of computer training, a very good thing which we all, in principle, support. People dialled up a website, entered their name and supplied the name of their learning provider. They then received an ILA account number and could claim their £200 from the state.
	It will not amaze the House if I say that the scheme was an invitation to fraud. In order to find a learning provider, people merely had to look in the mirror. It later turned out that a CD-ROM was available with ILA numbers to help people rip off the Government. The scheme was expected to have 1.1 million subscribers; it eventually had 2.5 million. It went 30 per cent. over budget and those who have reason to know say that the total cost was in excess of £550 million, half of which was defrauded from the Government by Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Del Boy Trotter and assorted other alleged purveyors—

David Taylor: And the Boris Johnson school of journalism?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman should withdraw that assertion. I came nowhere near to defrauding the individual learning account system. My entire purpose in the debate is to speak in favour of those who honestly entered into deals with the Government and found themselves ripped off by the Government's breach of promise.
	On 21 July 2001, the Government announced that the ILAs would continue "into the new era", but the gurgle of money down the drain turned into a roar and on 24 October, the ILAs were suspended, with a closure date of 7 December. By 23 November, the panic in Whitehall was so great and the sums lost were so huge that the scheme was brought to a sudden and juddering halt. It turned out that it was so riddled with fraud that it could not go on another day. I understand that the fraudsters had penetrated the central database of Capita, the firm contracted to run the scheme, and were simply looting it at will.
	The Minister has been generous with his time and has been helpful in my inquiries so far. Can he tell us what steps are being taken to penalise Capita, a firm with close links to the Government, and which paid £50 million to run the ILA scheme? It was a spectacular failure of administration. Why was Capita hired, when it had a history of epic bungling? For example, it was put in charge of administering Lambeth's housing benefit. Lambeth later cancelled the contract and pursued Capita for its fee after it emerged that there was a backlog of 30,000 claims and no fewer than 113,000 unopened letters. Many other councils had similar experiences with the company.
	What steps are the Government taking to penalise the bunglers that they hired, and what steps to compensate the many hundreds of honest learning providers who have been faced with financial ruin because of the Government's panic-stricken pulling of the plug? We still do not know why it was necessary to close down the ILA scheme in November, rather than to modify it, make it fraud-proof, and allow the bona fide firms to continue.
	People took out loans or remortgaged their houses and invested huge amounts of their own time and money, in the belief, backed up by constant Government assurances, that they were supplying a service that the Government not only desired but would help to pay for. They have been treated most shabbily. I speak not just for the Henley community online centre, which has been forced to close, but for about 1,000 other such companies across the country, which, as the Minister well knows, employed about 4,500 people. About £50 million of investment has been taken out of higher education. We still do not know how or when it will be put back. Though I have taxed the Minister before on the question, I should be grateful if he offered some clarification at the end of the debate.
	Where is the compensation for those whose legitimate expectations inspired by the Government were frustrated, and where is the replacement scheme? If the Government are really committed to higher education, we will have a son of ILA; if not, many hundreds of thousands of students and hundreds of firms will learn the same lesson about the Government as the disappointed parents of London did: that Labour promised far more than it could deliver, and when it found that it was falling down on its promises, it ratted on them without so much as turning a hair. If that is how the Government honour their undertakings this time, they cannot expect to be believed in the future.

Tom Levitt: I am grateful to the Opposition for calling the debate today. It is not long since we had a debate on education in Opposition time, and on that occasion I took 24 minutes, as I recall, to describe some of the major improvements that have taken place in High Peak and Derbyshire since the Government came to power. I got so excited in my enthusiasm that the only reason I sat down was sheer exhaustion. The opportunity to carry on where I left off is a temptation, indeed.
	I remember describing to the House the four new schools that we have had in my constituency in four years; the fact that more than half the schools have had extra classrooms, extensions or major capital investment; the fact that in Derbyshire we had the worst key stage 1 class sizes in the country, and we now have no child in an infant class of more than 30; the fact that we now have the highest standards of achievement ever in our schools in Derbyshire; the fact that we have had single regeneration budget cash to tackle the shortfall in adult literacy; and the fact that we have had better than inflation standard spending assessment increases in Derbyshire education spending every year. The House knows these things. They are established facts.

David Taylor: rose—

Tom Levitt: I know what my hon. Friend is about to say, but I shall allow him to intervene in any case.

David Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am sure that his A-level in telepathy was worth while. Yes, I am about to point out that Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and other shire counties receive substantially smaller amounts expressed in terms of SSA per primary school pupil and per secondary school pupil. We are 6 or 7 per cent. adrift of the average county and 13 or 14 per cent. adrift of Hertfordshire. Does my hon. Friend, like me, look forward with some anticipation to the ability of the new formula to redress that injustice?

Tom Levitt: Indeed. Unfortunately, the matter is not within the remit of the Department for Education and Skills. There is no point in reforming the defunct Tory system of SSAs, unless it is done in a way that will benefit people in the consistently underfunded counties such as Derbyshire and Leicestershire, as my hon. Friend explained.

Kerry Pollard: rose—

Tom Levitt: In the spirit of democracy, I shall let a Member from Hertfordshire intervene.

Kerry Pollard: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. In Hertfordshire, our costs are very much higher than in other counties. That has been recognised, and that is why we get the extra SSA. Does he accept that?

Tom Levitt: I accept that teachers are paid on a national pay scale, that Hertfordshire teachers and Derbyshire teachers are paid on the same rates, and that the vast majority of the education budget goes on teachers. My hon. Friend and I could continue the discussion in private, perhaps.
	I shall continue with the list of achievements. As a former teacher, I congratulate the Government on the fact that they have taken seriously teachers' arguments about work load. I accept the argument that there are teacher vacancies not because we have a historic shortage of teachers, but because we have created new teaching opportunities faster than we have been able to fill them. I am delighted to say that in the primary schools of High Peak, we are seeing the benefit of classroom assistants. Teachers in those primary schools tell me that they did not think that classroom assistants could produce such a benefit, how grateful they are that they have them, and what a wonderful job they can do to add to the community life of the school.
	Earlier, hon. Members referred to the number of people who qualified as teachers but who are no longer teaching, and to the drop-out rates. I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's reply. But there will be teachers who, like me, started to teach in the mid-1970s, who will recall that at that time there was a three-year watershed, and the number of teachers who qualified then and who were still in the job five years later was not that high. I suspect that it was not even as good as it is today.
	In the 1970s, teachers who did not feel satisfied had somewhere else to go. Throughout the recessions of the 80s and 90s, teachers who, after a few years, felt that teaching was not the job for them, did not have the same opportunity to get out. Given that we are now retaining teachers at an historically high level at a time of a thriving economy, when we all know that we are unlikely to end our career in the profession where we started it, our achievement is significant.
	No teachers have complained to me that they have received the £2,000 bonus unjustifiably, and the pay increases for the average classroom teacher during the past few years will ensure that, when we address the work load issue and other things that will benefit teachers, the retention level will be still higher; and we will have well motivated teachers with high morale contributing to the excellence of the service that is provided.
	I return to the point that I made earlier to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) in an intervention about teacher morale. When I was on Derbyshire county council from 1993 to 1997, there was only ever one item on the agenda, and that was cuts. Year after year, we were forced to cut our education budget as a result of the Government's use of the iniquitous SSA system, to allow class sizes to rise, and to decimate our youth service—a non-statutory provision within the education budget; in short, we let our education service go to seed. I am delighted that that situation has been reversed and I look forward to that progress continuing.
	I want to touch briefly on two areas that I was unable to cover in my previous contribution on this subject during an Opposition day debate; they are higher education and—the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) will be pleased to know—independent learning accounts and adult learning generally.
	On higher education, I want to tell the House of another success story. Shortly after I was elected to this place, I helped to negotiate the merger between the High Peak further education college and the university of Derby, one of the first mergers of its kind. It is already a success, not just because of the prestige of the degree courses provided but because the university has been enabled to develop in a new and comprehensive way to serve a rural community. The university has now pioneered distance learning. It has outposts in factories, community halls, libraries and even pubs throughout Derbyshire, where people can access courses online, particularly those that are vocationally oriented.
	At the same time, the university has acquired our most famous and prestigious historical building, the Devonshire Royal hospital in Buxton, with a dome bigger than almost any other dome of its kind in the world. It is a beautiful building that the university is developing into a brand new campus, saving our heritage site, and delivering in the centre of Buxton, not just for High Peak but for the whole country, high level courses in subjects at the heart of the local economy, such as sustainable tourism and hospitality-related issues. The most important aspect of the university is that it is bringing real education opportunities to ordinary people, whether from a traditional university background or otherwise.
	It has been fascinating to hear Opposition Members' views on individual learning accounts. They are right; what has happened is an embarrassment, and there is no getting away from that. It should not have happened. But they were over-subscribed. They were brought in to provide a service that had not hitherto been provided. Independent learning accounts gave many ordinary people their first opportunity. It was the first time since they had left school that they had got the message that education was for them. With a £200 computer literacy and information technology course, people had the opportunity to further their professional development and vocational ambitions, in many cases finding that an extra dimension, an extra value, had been given to their lives. People on doorsteps have said, "Thank heavens for the ILA. Thank heavens I went back into education." Having done one course, they have gone on to do another.
	In my constituency, there has also been the excellent sure start initiative; this nursery scheme, which I commend to hon. Members, will shortly bring adult learning within its framework. Those parents who are benefiting from sure start will find opportunities for learning themselves in parallel with their children, and I commend that excellent initiative to others.
	Today, education is open to all. ILAs, the university of Derby and the learning and skills council are co-ordinating post-16 education generally. The Minister will know that Derbyshire has one or two problems with the funding of the learning and skills council and the post-16 budget, and I am sure that he or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are about to sort those out—I look forward to that. I certainly look forward to the replacement of ILAs with something more sustainable that takes the values of ILAs and applies them more widely.
	I look forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) said, to the end of the SSA system, and to a fair, transparent and constructive system that will get rid of that nasty, divisive, politically corrupt system that we used to have under SSAs, when counties such as Derbyshire were singled out for bad treatment by the Tory Government year after year. Next April will see the end of the SSA system and I am confident that we will have a much fairer and more transparent system which will be another break with the past, another break with the Tory tradition of cuts, and another opportunity to invest, invest, invest in education for all. 6.17 pm

Andrew Turner: I am interested to hear of the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) for changes to the SSA system. As a representative of a constituency that does not always see itself as part of the south-east, I echo the concerns of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard). Where will the money come from? Will it be drained from the education authorities in the south-east, and particularly in London? With the London elections coming up, it behoves the Government to answer that question. If more is going to Derbyshire and other areas, more will come from somewhere else, and I should like the Minister to answer that point.
	I want to devote most of my time to ILAs. I have a letter from Mrs. Barnes of Cowes who says:
	"Thirty-five years ago I left school"—
	she then gives her age—
	"I hadn't taken full advantage of or appreciated my education but now I feel I had been given a second chance . . . Teachers at my Secondary school thought I would not amount to much. I can proudly say under the ILA scheme and dedicated team of tutors I am fully versed in Sage Accountancy for Beginners and Intermediate level, database and publishing, the prospects are good for me; I now manage a small roofing company".
	Another of my constituents says that she can now get a part-time job using what she learned in the ILA system. She says:
	"If I had not done this training I would still be looking for a job."
	Yet another of my constituents says:
	"I had been working in a shop for 10 years and had got very bored with it and I have always wanted to do office work. I attended the courses so I could get some experience behind me. I am thrilled to have passed six exams with distinction."
	In quoting those constituents, I am illustrating not only some of the successes of the ILA scheme—it is only fair to recognise them—but the aspirations of many people who have not had the benefit of the education that many hon. Members on both sides of the House share. Unfortunately, the Government have damaged those aspirations and have let down many other people who have taken advantage of the ILA system, and they have let down the providers as well.
	I shall quote some more of my constituents. A gentleman who had benefited from the ILA scheme but who is worried about what will happen in the future said:
	"There aren't many, if any, other courses that the average working person can get help with."
	A lady who was asked whether she was disappointed to see the scheme finish said:
	"Very disappointed. When I first saw the scheme advertised I thought it was too good to be true, a scheme that was actually helping employed people for a change at a price that was affordable."
	Another lady who was asked whether she was disappointed said:
	"Yes, very much so. There are very few, if any courses that can be taken if you are a working person. Cost is not a problem if you are highly paid or on benefit, but it is if you have an average job and only earning £5.72 per hour."
	A gentleman whom I shall not name described the situation most graphically. When asked whether he was disappointed to see the scheme finish, he said:
	"Yes! Low income people get kicked in the nuts again by central government."
	That is because central Government have failed to introduce and maintain successfully what was a very good idea.
	I congratulate Government on having the idea, and on the idea of a voucher for further education and training. The voucher idea is brilliant, and I wish that it could be widened to other disciplines, too. However, it had two fatal flaws. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) described, the Government saw the scheme being abused, and they took precipitate action to close it, thereby losing the confidence of the users and the providers. Many of those people will not try again—having got halfway through a course, or having decided to embark on a course, they will have lost their confidence, and they did not have much confidence to start with. They will feel that the Government have let them down because of the panic with which they closed the scheme.
	Of course I understand that there was fraud and abuse, although the Government seem to have had difficulty in describing exactly what is abuse and what is an enterprising new approach to marketing a scheme and getting new people to take advantage of learning who would otherwise not have done so. However, I am concerned that the Government went from their announcement on 24 October last year of the date when the scheme would be closed to closing it precipitately. I can only conclude that they did so because insufficient safeguards were built into the scheme in the first place.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Henley mentioned Capita. Perhaps 180,000 unopened letters in Lambeth under Capita's regime was an improvement on the previous regime in that borough, or perhaps not. However, Capita has let down the Government and the users. However, the providers have also been let down, for the reasons on which my hon. Friend expatiated. The providers invested their money, time and energy—in some cases, they mortgaged their homes—and some of them have gone bust because the Government do not accept responsibility for that participation.
	The Government were selling a "Government scheme" to a range of private sector providers, many of which are small businesses that can ill afford to offer the Government their trust and have it so badly abused. It is no good for the Government to say, "Don't worry, we had no contract with the small providers." If the Government let them down this time, as they have done, and if they see nothing wrong in letting them down—they do not—the small providers will not be available when the Government relaunch the ILA scheme, as I hope that they will do soon. The small providers will say, "Once bitten, twice shy." They will not get involved in a Government scheme of this kind unless there is a clear and unambiguous contract. I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) is muttering from a sedentary position. I shall give way to her if she has something useful to say.

Candy Atherton: Is the hon. Gentleman honestly trying to suggest that providers will not see opportunities to make money in a future scheme?

Andrew Turner: If they have gone bust—as many of them have done—they will find it difficult. If the hon. Lady is saying that they should have the same trust in the Government as they had under the previous scheme, I am sure that they will look into the history books and find that the Government pulled the plug on the providers and the users precipitately, and they will not get involved in a future scheme. Of course the big boys will get involved. It is good for big business, but it is no good at all for small businesses. It is good for the public sector, but no good for those in the private sector who risk their money, their livelihoods and their bank loans. That is one of the problems faced by the Minister in launching a new ILA scheme.
	The second problem—that of the single target—is one on which I sympathise with the Minister, as he inherited it from his predecessor. The Government set one target only for the ILA scheme—1 million participants by 2002. Close questioning of Ministers, civil servants and Capita by the Select Committee on Education and Skills has revealed only one target for the scheme—membership. There was nothing about quality, need or targeting those most in need. That is not satisfactory. It is not satisfactory to use so much public money without any guarantee of quality. I genuinely sympathise with the Minister on that.
	I also sympathise with the Minister—again, this was revealed in the evidence that Capita provided to the Education and Skills Committee—because the Government changed the basis of the scheme after Capita had been named as the preferred provider and had started to develop the computer scheme. The Government withdrew the connection with the learndirect list of registered providers, which was one of the quality mechanisms in place before the scheme was advertised. So, one month before the scheme was launched, the then Department for Education and Employment admitted that that connection could not be provided. Capita was let down, and the users and other providers of the scheme, as it turned out, were let down, too.
	I find the Minister not guilty on the last two counts, but the Government are certainly guilty. However, I fear that I find both the Government and the Minister guilty on the first count of closing the scheme precipitately and in a panic, and of damaging the interests of users and providers.

Tony Cunningham: Quite a lot of former teachers have contributed to this debate. As someone who taught in comprehensive schools for about 15 years, who has been a governor of several schools for about 20 years, and whose nine-year-old daughter is studying in a primary school at the moment, I honestly do not recognise the education system described by the hon. Members for Ashford (Mr. Green) and for Henley (Mr. Johnson). I shall not quote from briefings but talk about what is happening in my constituency.
	I wish to refer to a secondary modern school that was built roughly about the time that I was growing up. It did not have a particularly good reputation, but it is now a specialist technology college. Just a few weeks ago, I was approached by a teacher at the Southfield technology college, who had tremendous pride in the college. As I said, the school did not have a particularly good reputation, but the teacher told me that the specialist technology college had just had its Ofsted report and the Ofsted inspector had said that it was the best school that she had visited in 18 years. The teacher, with a smile on his face and pride in his voice, told me that the college was now going forward as a result of Labour policy.
	We had two further education colleges—one in Workington and one in Whitehaven—and the fabric of the buildings at both was deteriorating. However, the new Lakes college—it used to be called the West Cumbria college—was funded with £12 million of investment. It is superb. It is the first brand-new college for further education in the area and provides first-class education for the people of west Cumbria. Furthermore, £500,000 of investment went into a new all-weather facility at Cockermouth school, and I have seen new language labs, teaching facilities, science labs and drama facilities. I could go on and on. There has been tremendous investment in the schools in my constituency.
	I taught for 11 years at Netherhall school, and returned there recently. I finished teaching there in 1994, but many of the teachers with whom I taught are still at the school. I accept that there are recruitment and retention problems, but they do not exist across the country. They are found in specific areas.
	No one would dispute that there are challenges ahead. Teachers in my constituency say that they face distinct challenges, but they also point to the huge improvements in education. The Government and their policies are going in the right direction. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier, the secondary head teacher of the school where I am a governor told me that he had never known a time when the quality of his pupils was so good. He said that the school could do so much more in years 7 and 8 because of the primary education that his pupils had received. Part of that involved the numeracy and the literacy hours.

John Pugh: If satisfaction is so prevalent in the teaching profession, will the hon. Gentleman explain why teachers are currently balloting on strike action?

Tony Cunningham: I have been talking about my experience in my constituency, and teachers are not balloting for strike action there. However, I remember that, when I was a teacher in Maryport in the 1980s, the NUT balloted its members on strike action. When I discuss education with my former colleagues, I recognise the problems and challenges. However, I also ask them to think back to the 1980s and when we taught together. I can think of temporary classrooms that should have been bulldozed 20 years earlier, but which were still in place. I remember holding fund-raising events not to raise money for a new sports centre, but to raise money to paint classrooms and for exercise books and text books. When I ask them to think back to the 1980s, they cringe because they remember that time so distinctly.
	I also want to refer to resources. A head teacher recently told me that he had never known a time in which so much investment was going into schools and in which schools had so many resources at their disposal. Although Opposition Members would deny this, they have criticised the teaching profession. Some of the best primary and secondary schools in the country are in my constituency and the league tables demonstrate that. When we try to attract inward investment to my constituency, one of our selling points is the quality of education provided. We say to people who want to invest, "Come to this constituency because of the quality of life and because of the quality of the primary and secondary education that your children will receive."
	Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I pay tribute to the teaching profession. It might be argued that, as a former teacher, I am bound to do that, but teachers do an incredibly difficult job incredibly well. The same applies to the support staff, the governors and everyone associated with education.
	On recruitment and retention, I agree with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). One way of ensuring that we do not retain or recruit is to act like the Opposition and run down education, criticise teachers and say nasty things about them. If the Opposition want to recruit teachers and provide them with respect and status, I hope that they will join me in saying that teachers do an incredible job.
	Challenges lie ahead and, of course, everything is not right in the education system. However, the Government have put the building blocks in place and genuine improvements have occurred in primary and secondary schools. Let us give credit to the Government and pay tribute to the enormously hard-working teaching profession.

Alistair Burt: This has been a wide-ranging debate characterised by passion for the subject, which is not unusual. It is no surprise that we have ranged widely, because wherever one considers education and those who are working hard—both students and staff—we find that the Government have put obstacles in their way.
	I wish to make two points at the outset. First, no Conservative Member has criticised teachers. However, under a democracy, it is still possible to criticise the Government, and that is what we have done. Our support for teachers, particularly bearing in mind the burdens on them, is fulsome and genuine. Secondly, there are examples of good and bad practice at any time in the education system, under previous Governments or this one. That should not surprise anyone. However, the Secretary of State's repeated claim that 1997 was some sort of year zero is becoming increasingly wearing. The public find it incredible that nothing good happened before 1997, and the educational establishment is not fooled. The narrow-minded amnesia that she displays is wearing thin.
	The issue before the House is whether the charge made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) has been proved. He alleged that our motion was justified because of Government failure, incompetence, broken promises and weakness. To what extent have those charges been proved in the debate?
	First came a memorable speech from the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). We found out that, should he become Secretary of State for Education and Skills, he will be considerably more relaxed than the present Secretary of State. He was smoked out by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), because the hon. Gentleman said that the smoking of cannabis would make teaching easier. I have no doubt that he will reflect on the wisdom of his remarks, which caused surprise here and will, I suspect, cause considerable concern elsewhere.

David Rendel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he misquoted me completely. I never said that the smoking of cannabis by teachers would make them more relaxed or that the smoking of cannabis was a good idea in itself. I said that a change in the law so that cannabis was no longer illegal in the way that it is now would be a good idea and make the whole of society work a lot better.

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman may prefer to consult Hansard, and then have another crack at it. I suggested that it was put to him that the smoking of cannabis would make teaching easier, with which he agreed.
	We will draw a happy veil over the rest of the hon. Gentleman's speech, other than to pick out his admission that the Liberal Democrats in Scotland have not abolished tuition fees in higher education, but merely put them at the other end of the process.

David Rendel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alistair Burt: No. The hon. Gentleman can consult Hansard again.

David Rendel: That is a misquote.

Alistair Burt: I did not misquote you last time, and I am not misquoting you this time—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must use correct parliamentary language.

Alistair Burt: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not misquote the hon. Member for Newbury, who may refer to Hansard again in due course.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford focused on schools issues. He was supported by strong speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) and for Henley (Mr. Johnson). The latter's speech was especially strong on bullying in schools, an issue of which, disappointingly, Labour Members made light.
	Passionate speeches were made by Labour Members, including the hon. Members for South Shields (Mr. Miliband), who did his promotion prospects no harm, for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who made his usual sound and fair contribution, for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), who made interesting comments on mergers between higher education and further education colleges, and for Workington (Tony Cunningham), whose praise for the Government was so fulsome that even Ministers might have been embarrassed by it. The House will forgive me if I concentrate on three other issues.
	Higher education is apprehensive. Ministers say little about the problems of recruiting and retaining academic staff and funding research, or about a funding gap that Universities UK suggests is now £9 billion, but they do respond to other stimuli. They are turning the unwarranted attack into an art form—indeed, it is almost a policy in itself. Universities are not encouraged in their efforts to increase access to and participation in higher education but regularly hectored and condemned for not doing enough. Ministers conveniently forget that the pool of well-qualified post-16 pupils from non-traditional university backgrounds is simply not large enough. Their cries of "elitism" uttered at every turn to deflect criticism are becoming wearing.
	Students with debt problems, inspiring headlines such as "Debt grows ever bigger and even more painful", are met by the Minister for Lifelong Learning with a discussion of their drinking habits. That does not accord students, many from non-traditional backgrounds who work long hours outside their studies to fund their time at university, the support and respect that they deserve.

Hugo Swire: Does my hon. Friend regret the emergence of a practice that affects one of my constituents: the selling on of student debt, in my constituent's case from Nationwide to Deutsche Bank? The student in question cannot ascertain from anyone what he owes and to whom he owes it. By the admission of his university office, the whole system is in "complete chaos".

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. If the Government concentrated on students real difficulties and concerns instead of making hectoring remarks about them, people would be much better informed.
	Further education is a fantastic sector. Close to the need of students and local employers, FE colleges now teach a wider range of ability than ever before, and to an increasing extent, the pathway to higher education is through further education. Yet the Minister for Lifelong Learning decided not to encourage further education in recent remarks and speeches. Instead, she launched another unwarranted and silly attack that prompted an extraordinary response. Let me quote an open letter to her, dated 7 March, in which the chief executive of the Association of Colleges, David Gibson, writes:
	"Dear Margaret,
	I write to express the deep concerns and, in very many quarters, the absolute anger of those professionals committed to the teaching and learning of four million students in our Further Education sector at the ill-conceived and dangerously misleading information you provided to the media in pre-briefings, in your Department's press release and to the conference on Raising Standards in Post 16 Learning this morning."
	He goes on to quote examples of good practice in further education that the hon. Lady had either wilfully or neglectfully failed to mention. A Minister in that sector cannot expect to be taken seriously if she is at war with everyone in it, from universities to students and those in further education. She should reflect carefully on the image and reputation she is gaining.
	The bulk of my remarks will deal with the individual learning accounts scandal, to which my hon. Friends the Members for Henley and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) addressed the substance of their remarks. It has been the most remarkable problem, caused substantially by Government incompetence. No one doubts that the idea was good—the hon. Member for High Peak mentioned people's enthusiasm for it—but that leads precisely to the point: those who needed ILAs most have been let down by the Government. That is becoming the Government's hallmark. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) spoke about trust and whether anyone would trust the Government again. Those who have been let down will not trust them again.
	To replace a voluntary training relief scheme that had been part of the Conservatives' overall education package for some years, the Government deliberately introduced a system of ILAs. The concept was perfectly right, but the mechanisms were fundamentally flawed, as the Government were told from the start. Let me read a few extracts from accounts of events in the Select Committee on Education and Skills. Under the heading, "Learning accounts 'not robust enough'", one article states:
	"The government training grant scheme was not robust enough to stop fraudsters taking advantage, Department for Education officials have admitted."
	The second account states:
	"Training providers say security on the government's training accounts scheme was so poor that crooks could have accessed people's account numbers by guesswork."
	The third states:
	"Further education officials say they warned in advance that ILA training grants would be exploited by quick-footed 'Ferrari Nick' characters.
	They say there is a need to protect training funding from scam merchants who exploit loopholes in the system to make a lot of money very quickly."
	Setting Ferrari Nick against the Trabant that is the Department for Education and Skills was no contest.
	A scheme full of flaws, set up by the Government even though they had been warned about them, produced a wholly distorted market. Those already involved in training had to participate in ILAs, otherwise they would have had no business. Despite the warnings about the scheme, which gradually began to collapse, the Government had no systems in place to isolate and deal with small problems without destroying the whole scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said, the Government changed the parameters at a late stage and Capita could not deliver, so the whole scheme was lost. People who had students waiting to go on courses could not fulfil their obligations to them and had to meet the debts themselves.
	Businesses have been lost, students have lost the chance of education, and jobs have been lost. Above all, the confidence of those needed to make the ILA system work has been lost. I cannot think of a more woeful disaster brought on by a combination of incompetence and a desperate desire to achieve a manifesto target at all costs, which was all that mattered to Ministers. The Government's hallmark is becoming the production of a target out of thin air—devil may care if it is not achieved and anyone is damaged in the attempt to achieve it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford set out to prove that the Government's education policy is in crisis because of weakness, incompetence, failed policies and inability to deliver to those who need it most. From what we have heard, that case is proved. Labour Members now have the opportunity to make a name for themselves. It is not true that the Whips respect the good boys: they respect those who are prepared to stand out and cause trouble. To Labour Members who know that the Government have let down their constituents, I say—paraphrasing Martine McCutcheon—"This is your moment. This is your perfect moment to say your piece." Too many people have been let down for too long and the Government's answers have been too poor. I invite the whole House to vote with the Opposition.

John Healey: It is clear from today's debate and others that all hon. Members take an active interest in the schools in their constituencies. Fewer take such a close interest in their further education colleges, and not enough are aware of the skills needs of employers in their areas—a sad oversight, especially in view of the motion. Many hon. Members have spoken from personal experience and local knowledge. Some of the strongest contributions came from that perspective. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) made a typically reflective and wide-ranging speech, displaying a strong concern for his constituency. He pointed out that the delegated schools budget has risen by 50 per cent. since the 1997 general election—the equivalent of £1,000 a pupil. Importantly, he stressed the need for a culture of high expectations, particularly in constituencies such as ours, and the importance of focusing our resources and efforts on those who are most disadvantaged.
	The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell- Grainger) referred to concerns in his area about the school census. The purpose of the census is to give a clearer picture of the impact and operation of policies in one go, so that data collection is managed more easily and is less burdensome for schools to provide. He also expressed concern about security. Names will be held securely within the Department and accessed only by technical staff who have agreed to, and have been trained to, the required security levels. Outside organisations will be given access only if a clear need exists. In most cases, the data in question will be anonymised.
	The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson)—I am glad that he has returned to his place—detailed his constituency dealings, as well as some general points about individual learning accounts, to which I shall return later. His comments were echoed by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who has made a significant contribution to the Select Committee's inquiries. He gave a balanced account of his concerns, and his contribution was more measured than the florid phrases of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green).
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) spoke with authority about the chemicals industry in his constituency. I should tell him that I launched a new sector skills council in Aberdeen this morning, which will enable us to reinforce the influence of employers in the chemicals, petroleum and extraction industry over future skills and learning provision.
	The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) took us to task over what he described as our failure to deal with school repairs sufficiently quickly. I should remind him that, since 1997, significant repairs have been made to 17,000 schools, and we have trebled capital investment in schools. In 1996–97, £683 million was invested; last year, more than £2 billion was invested; and by 2003–04, the figure will rise to £3.5 billion.
	My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) spoke with the authority of a former teacher. He said that half the schools in his constituency have new classrooms or have undergone major repairs. He also talked about the four new schools there, and pointed out that the highest standards ever have been achieved. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham)—another former teacher—said that he did not recognise the Opposition's description of the education system. His view is shared by my hon. Friends and by many outside the House.
	The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who wound up for the Opposition, touched on higher education, further education and individual learning accounts. I welcome his assertion that the concept of ILAs was perfectly right, and I shall return to the problems associated with them in a moment.
	Those contributions were in contrast to that of the hon. Member for Ashford, who got the debate off to a dismal start. He accused my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of myth making and public relations polish, but there can hardly have been a Secretary of State for Education who was more blunt-speaking, knowledgable, experienced and ready to recognise the reality of the challenges that we in the education system face. It is simply not credible to talk of crisis. As every hon. Member knows, on visiting schools in our constituencies we see more books, more computers, more classrooms and more staff than we did in 1997.
	I was also disappointed with other aspects of Opposition Front-Bench contributions. The Department that I am proud to serve is called the Department for Education and Skills, and although the title of the Opposition's motion indeed refers to education and skills, the hon. Member for Ashford made no mention of skills. It was left to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire to mention further education.
	The UK work force are becoming better educated, but the demand for skills is growing and will continue to grow. Between now and 2010, eight out of 10 new jobs will demand level 3 skills or above. The employment rate for people with no qualifications is 60 per cent., and for those with level 2 qualifications or above, it is 80 per cent. However, 30 per cent. of our current work force do not have level 2 skills. A yet greater scandal is that 7 million adults—half those in work today—do not have the reading, writing and mathematics skills that we now expect of our 11-year-olds. That scandal has been left untackled for too long, and I am proud to say that—at last—we have a Government who are meeting that challenge. We are putting in place the necessary resources and a national programme, and tackling those basic literacy and numeracy problems by setting arguably the toughest targets anywhere in the education field.
	As the Minister responsible for individual learning accounts, I shall now deal with them. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight made clear through the testimonies of his constituents, ILAs were innovative and important and brought learning to many who had not been taught since they left school. Some 91 per cent. of ILA learning met or exceeded the expectations of those who took it up, and 85 per cent. said that it increased the training and learning options available to them. However, it was misused and abused by a minority of learning providers, who spoiled the process for their colleagues and for the learners whom they were supposed to serve.
	Problems began to emerge in earnest over the summer, and we took steps to try to tackle them. We introduced a new learning provider agreement, removed 700 learning providers from the register, introduced new information for learners, ended the use of blanket application forms, and suspended learning providers who were misusing or abusing the system. Moreover, Capita and the Department introduced a joint compliance unit to try to deal with the problems. However, the design of the system did not allow us to stamp out abuse, so in the end we had no option other than to close the scheme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regret that. We are very conscious of the impact on learners and learning providers.
	We are trying to do three things. First, we are trying to ensure that legitimate payments are made to legitimate providers for legitimate learning. We have paid £7 million of the £21 million that was claimed in respect of learning that took place, or was booked, before 23 November, when the scheme was closed. Double that sum— £14 million—has been claimed by 193 providers, but we are withholding it because we have serious concerns about them and are investigating them.
	Secondly, we are investigating complaints against 672 learning providers. Our own special investigations unit is investigating 105 complaints, and the police are investigating a further 66. Some 45 arrests have already been made; 13 people have been charged, one of whom has been convicted.
	I turn now to compensation for learning providers. From the outset, the decisions that learning providers made to take advantage of the scheme were business decisions, which they took for themselves. The Government were not, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight asserted, selling the scheme to learning providers. There was no contract between the Department and learning providers, and therefore we are not considering claims for compensation for those providers.
	I have been struck by the disappointment that has greeted the closure of individual learning accounts, but I have also been struck, very strongly, by the strength of the support and encouragement given to the Government to reintroduce a successor scheme, as we will do.
	I return to the question of schools. I could recite the headline figures but, like every hon. Member, I know from what is happening in my constituency what a difference the Government's policies are making in schools.
	I leave this thought with Opposition Front-Bench Members. As long as they overstate the case with talk of crisis, no one will take their criticisms seriously. They have no answer to problems such as the pressures of teacher work load. They have no answer to the problem of teacher retention and recruitment, other than to cut the number of circulars. They have no policies to reinforce standards in our schools. They have no contribution to make to the debate about employers' need for skills or reform in the further education sector. As long as all that remains, the Government will not take their criticisms seriously, and no one else will either.
	Above all, the Leader of the Opposition is on record as approving cutting public service spending to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product. As a result, the hon. Member for Ashford cannot say that he would match our investment. As long as that remains the case, the Opposition will remain out of touch and irrelevant, with no one taking their points seriously.
	I urge my hon. Friends to reject this incoherent, irrelevant and incredible motion, and the arguments that we have heard this afternoon from the Opposition.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 322.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
	The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 178.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House recognises an education system which is benefiting from an unprecedented period of sustained investment on an unprecedented scale, in parallel with the Government's strategy to raise standards through an ambitious series of reforms of the curriculum, the teaching profession and the organisation of schools; welcomes Ofsted's latest annual report showing the highest ever proportion of good and excellent lessons in schools, and the OECD's PISA Report that the UK performance was above the OECD average across all three domains of reading, mathematical and scientific literacy; notes the other tangible signs of increased investment and reform such as higher academic standards at primary and secondary level, the dramatic reduction in the numbers of infants in large classes, more teachers in schools than at any time in the last decade, extra resources and more people than ever going into Higher Education, with 45,000 new places since 1997; notes further the huge increase in the number of adults who are now acquiring basic skills and learning for their futures; recognises the clear commitment of the Government to address teacher workload in partnership with the unions and other agencies; welcomes the positive proposals the Government has given to headteachers on school exclusions, reinforcing their right to manage their schools and enforce discipline as they see fit; recognises that working closely with parents, police and health professionals is key to tackling unacceptable levels of absence and supports the Government's work in this area; and supports the measures being taken by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to ensure that examination results are delivered successfully.

Richard Spring: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the most welcome and significant news this evening of Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth, which we have long advocated in view of the violence and intimidation surrounding the presidential election there, have you had word from the Foreign Secretary that he will come to the House at 10 o'clock to make an urgent statement about the situation, the future of the Commonwealth and our relationship with Zimbabwe?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I know that there is great concern in the House about these matters. I have not had any indication that such a statement is to be made, but the House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has just said.

Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you be so kind as to advise the House whether it is possible at this hour to put down an application under Standing Order No. 24, requiring the Foreign Secretary to come to the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should probably inquire at the Table Office about matters of that sort.

Chinook Crash

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

David Davis: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the House of Lords Select Committee Report on Chinook ZD 576, which concludes that 'the Air Marshals were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots of ZD 576 caused the crash' in the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994; and calls on the Government to exonerate the deceased pilots, flight lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook.
	This is an unusual motion for an Opposition day debate because it is sponsored on a cross-party—indeed, almost an all-party—basis. That is because it is virtually an apolitical subject: there is no ideology involved, and no party difference. Furthermore, the original decisions that we are seeking to put right were taken under a Conservative Administration. We are not, therefore, seeking to score political points. We are seeking simply to correct a miscarriage of justice that has gone on for too long. In the light of this cross-party approach—subject, of course, to getting a reasonable response from the Minister—I am not minded to press the matter to a vote tonight, but we shall wait and see.
	At about 1759 hours on 2 June 1994, a Royal Air Force Chinook mark 2 helicopter, ZD 576, on a flight from Aldergrove to Inverness crashed into a cloud-covered hill on the west side of the Mull of Kintyre. The pilots, Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook, the other two crewmen, and the 25 passengers—all senior members of the Northern Ireland security services—were killed. The aircraft was completely destroyed in the crash and subsequent fire, and many of its component parts, including much instrumentation and the digital engine control unit, also suffered total destruction. Neither a cockpit voice recorder nor an accident data recorder was fitted. There were no eye witnesses to the crash, nor any radar trace.
	Because of the absence of hard evidence of what happened on that fateful day, the investigating board made no finding of negligence on the part of the pilots. Nor did the two station commanders who reviewed those findings. Nevertheless, the two air marshals to whom the investigating board's report was submitted concluded that the pilots were negligent and that they failed to take appropriate action when approaching deteriorating weather near the mull. Furthermore, the air marshals maintained that the pilots voluntarily did not take the necessary action safely to avoid the land mass ahead of them. Both pilots were therefore found guilty of gross negligence. Not only did they lose their lives, but their reputations—and the peace of mind of their families—were destroyed. They were allowed no defence or appeal, and were denied the benefit of the doubt of the RAF board of inquiry. They were effectively convicted of causing the deaths of 27 other people.
	RAF rules in force at the time provided that deceased air crew could be found negligent only when there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". That is a higher standard of proof than the "beyond reasonable doubt" required in criminal trials, and it is very much higher than the "balance of probabilities" laid down for civil law. In practice, the "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" standard means that every other possible explanation of the crash must be positively disproved. The House of Lords Select Committee demonstrated that the air marshals had come nowhere near that level of proof.
	Early in 1996, a fatal accident inquiry was held in Paisley sheriff court. The sheriff, Sir Stephen Young, conducted an inquiry involving evidence and submissions taken over some 16 days. The sheriff concluded:
	"It has not been established to my satisfaction, and on the balance of probabilities, that the cause of the accident was the decision by the crew of ZD 576 to overfly the Mull of Kintyre at cruising speed and their selection for that purpose of an inappropriate rate of climb. It may then be asked what was the cause of the accident. For my part I can only say that I do not know."
	The sheriff was applying the lower standard of proof appropriate in civil law, namely the balance of probabilities. In other words, the air marshals had not even shown that their conclusion was probable, let alone certain. The Ministry of Defence refused to accept the judgment, on grounds subsequently shown to be flawed.
	In November 2000 the Public Accounts Committee, under my chairmanship, reported on the MOD's acceptance of the Chinook mark 2 helicopter. The Committee considered that an engine-control software fault or other technical malfunction on the ZD 576 was a real possibility, and that there was not enough evidence to rule it out as at least a potential cause of the crash. In its view, it was
	"impossible to prove gross negligence in the case of ZD 576".
	Again, the MOD refused to accept the judgment—a judgment that the Committee had reached unanimously, after extensive investigation by the National Audit Office.

Edward Leigh: In the Treasury minute that constituted a reply to the recommendations of my right hon. Friend's Committee, the Government claimed that there was no proof that the FADEC software system was at fault. I can buy that; but having made their assertion, the Government went on to say that because there was no explanation of why the helicopter had hit the Mull of Kintyre, the pilots must have been guilty of gross negligence. That is in paragraph 8 of the minute. It is surely a jump in the logic of the Government's argument, which I do not find very convincing.

David Davis: My hon. Friend—the new Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—is entirely right. He has highlighted the point that the Government have always walked around the issue of requirement of absolute proof. The onus is on them to demonstrate that the FADEC was, in effect, perfect, which we know it was not. There are plenty of examples of its causing serious problems, cited in the report.
	In July 2001, the House of Lords appointed a Select Committee to consider whether the finding of negligence was justified. Six weeks ago the Committee, consisting of five peers including four very distinguished lawyers and a very distinguished engineer, reported on the accident after hearing evidence for six months. Its members concluded unanimously that
	"the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash."
	The Government have said that they need time to consider the Select Committee's report, but Ministers' immediate response was that it covered
	"the same ground with the same information".
	They said that there was
	"no new evidence and no new facts".

Geoff Hoon: Is the case being made by the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition that the House, and indeed the Government, should simply accept the report of a Select Committee in the other place without further consideration?

David Davis: That was a timely intervention. I shall come on to exactly why we have concerns about the Government's response.
	The ministerial response that there was
	"no new evidence and no new facts"
	misses the point. The required evidence never existed in the first place. The House of Lords report shows unequivocally that the so-called facts underpinning the air marshals' judgment were at best educated guesswork, and at worst demonstrably wrong.
	Nevertheless, it was reassuring that the Government did not reject the report out of hand in the first instance. The same does not apply to other reports. That gave hope to the families of the pilots and to those who had campaigned for many years to see their names cleared—volunteer supporters, Channel 4 and Computer Weekly, for instance.
	We now understand, however, that the Government plan to order a new simulation from Boeing. That points to the likelihood that they intend to find a reason for sticking to their finding of gross negligence. Such a course is wrong, in my view. The House of Lords Select Committee has demonstrated numerous flaws in the original Boeing simulation used to investigate the accident, and criticised the air marshals' treatment of the output of that simulation as fact.
	The original simulation assumed a combined speed and rate of climb that have since been found to be unattainable—impossible in practice. It produced the wrong rotor speed, and it produced a ground speed during the final manoeuvre that was 11 knots higher than that measured by the ground-speed indicator. Perhaps most significant of all, it presupposed that before the crash the aircraft had been under control on a steady course and at a steady speed.
	As well as depending on a mixture of dubious data and guesses about the Chinook's position, height and speed, a further simulation would not—indeed could not—deal with the possibilities of technical failure. Put simply, it would be another "garbage in, garbage out" exercise.

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but he has not answered my earlier question. He seems to be suggesting that the Government should simply accept the report of the House of Lords Committee without further investigation. Is that what he is saying?

David Davis: I did answer the Secretary of State's question once, but he will have to wait until the end of my speech to hear what I have to say about the simulator. I have some questions for him, which I hope that he will answer in his own speech.
	I fear that the Government will maintain their pattern of behaviour in ignoring the findings of independent, expert and reputable bodies that have examined the accident in detail. They say that there is "no new evidence". That fails to take on board the fact that the House of Lords has shown that the original verdict was based on fallacious or non-existent evidence.

David Rendel: It has already become clear that the original decision of the air board was changed by the air marshals when they made their final decision, without their having any different evidence to consider. If it is possible for a decision to be changed on the basis of judgment as to where the blame lay, with no new evidence, why is it not possible for the Government to change a decision on the basis of "no new evidence"? I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is probably plenty of new evidence, but even if there were not there would be no reason for the Government to stick to their decision.

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman is right. He was also a member of the Public Accounts Committee at the time of the discussion, so he is familiar with the Government's problem of "no new evidence". I shall say more about that later.
	Let us consider the course of events during those fateful days in 1994. On the day of the last flight of Chinook ZD 576, after obtaining weather reports Flight Lieutenant Tapper decided that the flight to Inverness would be a low-level sortie flying under visual flight rules, or VFR, and intimated that he was not intending to fly under instrument flight rules—IFR. Indeed, flying under IFR in the vicinity of the mountains to the east of Ballachulish and Fort William would not have been permitted because of icing restrictions. Flight Lieutenant Tapper therefore selected a route that included flying towards the Mull of Kintyre lighthouse, which was programmed into the Chinook's computerised navigation system as way point A, and from there to Corran on Loch Linnhe, programmed as way point B. According to the SuperTANS computer, the Chinook was a mile from the lighthouse when the crew selected the next way point.
	The original air marshals' criticism of the two pilots was based on the assertion that they had voluntarily flown over the Mull of Kintyre at too low a rate of climb in instrument conditions. But why would an experienced helicopter crew, immediately after selecting a pre-programmed visual way point, suddenly agree not to turn on to it, switch to instrument flight rules, which they had ruled out at the pre-flight briefing, and fly straight on to cloud-covered high ground which it knew to be there? Special forces helicopter crews exercised regularly in that area and were extremely familiar with the landscape and the weather conditions associated with it.
	When the matter was debated in Westminster Hall, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence said:
	"they flew on, contrary to instrument and visual flight rules. The evidence is that they were already too close to the cloud-covered mass of the mull and were travelling too low and too fast."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 27 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 174WH.]
	That is the basis of part of the accusation for gross negligence, but it does not add up. On what evidence was the ZD 576 "too low" at way point change? The only concrete data were an eyewitness account from a yachtsman, Mr. Mark Holbrook, who saw the helicopter at the height of between 200 and 400 ft about two miles from the mull. The helicopter was clear of cloud and in sunlight. That is consistent with the crew's visual flight rules flight plan, which was seen and described as being "thorough and professional" by the board of inquiry. There is no case for the aircraft being too low.

John Wilkinson: May I refer my right hon. Friend to the logbook entry of the Sea King crew members who went to the scene of the accident? They made it absolutely clear that the weather around the lighthouse was nowhere near visual flight rules. In fact, they had to grope their way in at 100 ft with radar assistance, and they spoke of sucker holes, which is just the sort of thing to which the yachtsman referred. The cloud conditions change very rapidly in that kind of terrain. One may get a fleeting glimpse of an aeroplane; it does not mean that it is in visual flight rules.

David Davis: I recognise my hon. and gallant Friend's experience in this area. The Sea King went after the accident. It is well known that the weather changes in that area, a point well understood by the special forces crew that flew there, but I will come back to that point.
	On what evidence was ZD 576 "too fast" at the way point change?

Menzies Campbell: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to leave consideration of Mr. Holbrook's evidence, but if he has carefully examined the report, as I am sure he has, he will know that at page 19, paragraph 67, the conclusion of the Select Committee of the House of Lords was to say:
	"We had no hesitation in accepting him as a reliable and convincing witness."

David Davis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is exactly right. One of the problems was that the Royal Air Force appeared to write off Mr. Holbrook's evidence early on and to view him as a fallible witness, for reasons perhaps touched on by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson).
	The air marshals tried to tell the House of Lords Committee that the Chinook ZD 576 was going so fast that it would not have been able to turn in time to avoid the cliffs, but that was based on false assumptions. First, it assumed that the aircraft was travelling at the ground speed of 174 knots used by the Boeing simulation. There is no basis for that assumption.
	Nobody knows the speed at the way point change. The tail wind was about 20 knots, and the Chinook normally cruises at 130 knots. According to the inquiry, ZD 576 crashed at 150 knots ground speed but that does not tell us the speed at the way point. Mr. Holbrook, the yachtsman, estimated the speed of the Chinook when he saw it at about "60-80 knots".
	The Lords Committee also concluded, based both on Mr. Holbrook's statement and expert witnesses,
	"that the crew had probably seen the land mass at or before the time the way point was changed."
	So the witnesses' evidence points to the Chinook flying in visual flight conditions, at the right height, at a lowish speed. The Lords Committee criticised the board of inquiry for not paying more attention to the yachtsman's evidence.

Geoff Hoon: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that at the way point change the aircraft was functioning perfectly properly?

David Davis: It is probable but the problem is that we are dealing here with requirements of absolute proof. However, even if the aircraft behaved perfectly properly at the way point change, it is entirely possible that, immediately after the way point change, that ceased to be the case. Flight jams are well known to occur. Evidence given by the squadron test pilot of the Chinook suggests that flight jams occur very often on change of direction. That would have occurred immediately after, or within seconds of, a way point change.

John Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend will recall that the heading change was something in the order of 13 deg, a minuscule injection of bank and heading change. If there had been something wrong with the aeroplane as it went across the Irish sea, the crew would have aborted the sortie, changed the flight profile or issued a pan call—an emergency call. It would have been perfectly plain. They did nothing of the kind, so the assumption must be that they pressed on in the knowledge that all systems were working perfectly. They had good time to put a call into military air traffic Scottish region.

David Davis: I am afraid that the use by my hon. and gallant Friend of the word "assumption" rather blows the case. We cannot make assumptions on this. The level of proof required is no assumptions. Two witnesses who spoke to the House of Lords Committee—witness A, a special forces pilot who could not be identified, one of the most decorated pilots around today and certainly very high on experience of Chinooks, and Squadron Leader Burke, who was the squadron test pilot on the aircraft—both recognised intermittent faults that were brought on in erratic, unpredictable ways, and a small change of direction could well make that change. I will come back to the point later, but the simple fact is that they both thought that the most likely outcome was a control jam after the way point.
	The Lords Committee found that there was no evidence to back up the data used to estimate the Chinook's height, speed, position and course at
	"any time prior to impact",
	so the whole approach of the air marshals was based on a lot of assumptions.
	The MOD's assumption that the way point change was made when the aircraft was some 600 m from the cliff is based on information retrieved from the Chinook's computerised tactical area navigation system, also known as TANS or SuperTANS. That system was heavily damaged in the crash.
	The RAF used TANS as the basis for its reconstruction of the final seconds of the flight claiming that the data used were
	"facts based on clear evidence".
	One of the air marshals, Sir John Day, used this information to
	"build up a rudimentary accident data type recorder picture of the last 20 seconds of flight".
	The Lords Committee dismissed these claims as "hypotheses and assumptions". Further, according to the manufacturer, the computer was never designed to give historical data. In addition to that, it had hit a mountain at 147 knots, or l70 mph, and then burned. Who would believe any information garnered from that computer to be 100 per cent. accurate? Even given that, that computer system was well known to be subject to errors.
	There is an ironic example. On 13 July 1995, a Chinook mark 2, the same sort of Chinook, was tasked to perform an overflight of Flight Lieutenant Jonathan Tapper's memorial. Crew members were in visual contact with the ground and they knew when they were precisely over the memorial. The TANS on that aircraft indicated that the aircraft was 2 nautical miles away from the memorial—the system "believed" it was some 2 nautical miles away from the aircraft's actual position, so the system is certainly fallible. Again, I remind colleagues of the level of proof required.
	The House of Lords Committee therefore threw out the "wrong place, wrong speed, wrong height" argument of the air marshals. That leaves the problem of how the Chinook came to crash into the mull. Was there a technical fault that made the aircraft difficult or impossible to control, which was implicit in the Secretary of State's questions to me earlier?
	Under the rules of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever", the MOD is required to eliminate any such possibility. Sir William Wratten, the senior air marshal, has stated that the RAF board of inquiry found a "total absence" of any technical problem that could have caused the crash. In a crash of this destructiveness, it is entirely possible that all evidence of a control problem could be destroyed. Actually, there is evidence pointing to at least three possibilities: an engine control problem, a control jam and a hydraulic system problem. Furthermore, the investigating board did not rule out a distracting technical fault.
	In particular, the board noted that the Chinook had been experiencing engine control system—known as FADEC—malfunctions, including "undemanded run-ups". That technical phrase basically means sudden surges of power that could destabilise the helicopter. The board noted also that an
	"unforeseen technical malfunction of the type being experienced on the Chinook . . . remained a possibility that could not be discounted."
	Again we must remember the requirement for the level of evidence.
	It has also emerged that, at the time of the crash, the MOD was suing both Boeing and Textron Lycoming—the manufacturers of the Chinook and its engines, respectively—because of faulty test procedures and a design fault in the aircraft's FADEC software. Malcolm Rifkind has said that if he had known this and the other technical problems at the time of the investigation, he would not have supported the verdict of the air marshals. He was the Secretary of State at the time.
	The RAF's board of inquiry did not properly consider either of these facts. Indeed, it neglected to take evidence from Squadron Leader Bob Burke, the vastly experienced Chinook test pilot, and Malcolm Perks, the technical expert who had spent many years working in the field of FADEC, often for the MOD. Both men gave evidence to the Lords inquiry about the FADEC system and the possible flight control problems that it could cause.
	After the accident, the investigators found that a number of components in the Chinook's hydraulic flight control systems had become detached. The air accidents investigation branch stated that the possibility that these components
	"had detached prior to the accident could not be dismissed."
	In fact, three weeks before the accident, this same Chinook suffered an undemanded flight control movement caused by detachment of one of the same set of components. This and its dire flight safety implications were noted in an engineering report made by the helicopter's ground crew.

Frank Cook: Is it not true that the flight crew on that day had sought an alternative aircraft to make the journey?

David Davis: That is right. There is a trail of concerns about the aircraft, expressed particularly by Flight Lieutenant Tapper.
	On the question of control jams, two expert witnesses—whom I described earlier—expressed the view that the most likely cause of the accident was a jam of some kind affecting the control of the aircraft, perhaps arising from detached hydraulic system components and arising immediately after an attempt to change direction in the aircraft.
	Finally in terms of possible causes, in June 1997 a US Army report into Chinook safety considered an incident when a Chinook had barrel-rolled at about 1,100 ft and righted itself at about 250 ft. Following the incident, the helicopter was completely stripped down. No cause for the incident could be established. Let me emphasise this: a Chinook helicopter went out of control and barrel-rolled to within a second or so of total destruction, and not one single solid piece of evidence was found about the cause. Hydraulic contamination was thought to be most likely. The AAIB also discovered metal contamination in the same part of the Chinook ZD 576's hydraulic system.
	Following the accident, the rudder pedals were found at 77 per cent. of full travel. This is an extreme position—almost full left rudder. Expert witnesses told the Lords Committee that such "an enormous rudder input" was unthinkable at high speed. This, combined with other control inputs found, suggested an
	"erratic flight path typical of a partial control loss."
	Both Sir John Day and Sir William Wratten accepted that the possibility of a control jam or engine malfunction could not be disproved. Again, I remind the House of the required level of proof.
	In conclusion, there is a lack of evidence pointing to reasons why the pilots should have decided to change course and switch to instrument rules. Indeed, all the evidence indicates that they had no reason to do so. So why did the helicopter fly on into the mull? Well-known technical problems and episodes suffered by this very helicopter must surely point to at least the possibility that technical problems caused or contributed to the crash.
	However, the MOD has given no benefit of doubt in either of these key aspects, even though many problems and doubts have been raised. In short, it has not been established to the required level of proof that it was the voluntary action of the pilots which caused the aircraft to fly into the hill. This is precisely why the Government should set aside the verdict of gross negligence.
	If the Secretary of State is not willing to do that today—it would appear that he is not—I would like him to answer three questions about his proposed new simulation that will help his thinking in making his final decision. First, where will he get the new input data for his new simulation, since the old simulation failed partly because of a lack of inputting? Secondly, how will the simulation take account of any possible control system malfunction? The other one did not. Finally, will he see that any simulation is carried out by an independent body, and not by Boeing, which has a clear commercial interest in the outcome of this case? Will he also ensure that an independently monitored flight test of a representative RAF Chinook is carried out to verify that the simulated flight manoeuvres can be achieved and are not impossible, as was the case in his previous so-called evidence?
	I hope the Secretary of State will take seriously the House of Lords refutation of the air marshals' judgment and the standards of proof required. He must accept that this is a matter of natural justice and see fit to clear the pilots' names. This is now a matter of honour, not just for the pilots but for the MOD itself.

Geoff Hoon: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"notes the House of Lords Select Committee Report on Chinook ZD 576; further notes that the Government is currently studying the report; and looks forward to the Government's promised full and detailed response to the House of Lords."
	With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to this evening's debate on the tragic RAF Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994. I must say that it is perhaps slightly surprising, in the light of events elsewhere, that the Opposition chose to debate this subject today. They are well aware that the Government are still carefully considering the House of Lords Select Committee report on the crash. It is therefore difficult at this stage to add to what has been said previously. The Government have up to six months to respond to the report, and we certainly aim to do so before that deadline is reached.
	The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) set out the facts and I do not intend to repeat them. He did skate over one point, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). The board of inquiry was entirely properly constituted and reached its conclusions as a properly constituted board of inquiry would be expected to. The right hon. Gentleman should accept that there is no suggestion of division in the way in which it went about reaching its conclusions.
	Everyone recognises that what happened that evening has cast a very long shadow. It has had a devastating impact on the lives of the 29 families of those who lost loved ones in the crash. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that I am completely sympathetic to the concerns of the families of the dead pilots; I also speak for the MOD when I say that. I entirely understand their wish to clear their relatives' names, but I must emphasise that we must also remember with sympathy and understanding the relatives of the others who so tragically lost their lives in this accident. This issue has touched all of those who have had to deal with it over the past seven years, including a series of chiefs of staff and Defence Ministers representing both sides of the House.

Julian Lewis: Has MOD policy changed in either of two respects? First, in future, would the MOD ever approve the concentration of such a large number of key intelligence personnel in a single aircraft? If not, that suggests a vested interest in blaming the pilots. Secondly, is it true that a decision has been made that, in future, in circumstances even of this sort, there would be no question of the MOD blaming deceased pilots? If the rules have been changed because of the case of these two pilots, is it not monstrously unjust that the two pilots themselves, who have led to the change in the rules, should nevertheless continue to carry the blame in perpetuity?

Geoff Hoon: Clearly it was not sensible for so many highly specialised people to be carried on a single aircraft, but I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's implication that there is a deliberate conspiracy to cover up the details simply to protect those who were responsible for the decision in the first place. I am sure that if he thinks about that for a second, he will realise that that is not a proper imputation to make at this stage.

Tam Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Geoff Hoon: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to respond to the hon. Gentleman's second point.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the present rules, which certainly have changed. They have not necessarily changed as a result of this specific unfortunate incident, but they have changed. However, that creates a difficulty for the hon. Gentleman and those who support this campaign. Not only do they need to look at the evidence in the light of the information that they have today but, in my view, they have to put themselves in the position of members of the board of inquiry at the time, applying the standards and rules that they had to apply. It is all very well rewriting history and saying that it is possible to look at historic events in a different way in the light of our experience and current practice, but the only fair way of dealing with this is to put oneself in the position of the air marshals and the board of inquiry, who were subject to the relevant rules of the Royal Air Force at the time.

Tam Dalyell: Before leaving the problems of previous Secretaries of State for Defence, would not my right hon. Friend have been understandably annoyed if he had not been told that legal proceedings involving the manufacturers were taking place? What does he say to Malcolm Rifkind, who has expressed public annoyance that he was not told? It is not exactly the best way for the Ministry of Defence to treat its then Secretary of State.

Geoff Hoon: Malcolm Rifkind is not here and it would perhaps be unfair to respond fully to that point. However, I agreed to see him when he wished to make representations about this matter. I hope that I am fair to him when I say that the conclusion of our conversation was to the effect that were he to be in the same position again he would not have reached the same conclusion that he reached originally. That is a perfectly proper judgment for him to reach, and I think that it is a fair account of the way in which he now puts the case. Nevertheless, when he considered the matter in the light of whatever evidence was before him at the time, he reached a different conclusion. As I said, I have discussed the matter with him and nothing that he said to me at the time persuaded me that there was at that stage any need to reopen the matter.

Crispin Blunt: I was Malcolm Rifkind's special adviser at the time, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it would not have been the desire of the then Secretary of State in those circumstances to revisit the judgment of two air marshals sitting on the board of inquiry unless there was evidence for doing so. He quite properly supported the opinion of the air marshals. Since there has been new evidence, he has revised his opinion. The Secretary of State is in precisely that position.

Geoff Hoon: I have always made it clear on behalf of the Government that were there to be new evidence I would consider reopening the matter. That is why I believe it necessary to look very carefully at the report published by the Select Committee in the other place so that we can reach a proper result on the basis of its analysis of the facts and the interesting technical views that it expressed at the time. Again, that is why I find it slightly surprising that the Opposition appear to believe that the position of the Government and the House ought to be to accept the views of a Select Committee in the other place without any further consideration. I made that point to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, and notwithstanding the suggestion that he had answered me, I am afraid that he did not.

John Redwood: The Secretary of State implied that the interests of the relatives of the deceased passengers were somehow different from those of the relatives of the deceased pilots. Surely they are entirely the same. All relatives of the deceased have suffered greatly and want to make sure that the Secretary of State gets to the bottom of the matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) is simply saying that there are reasons for doubt. Could not the Secretary of State give us a little hope by saying that he accepts that there are unanswered questions that he must take seriously when responding to the House of Lords inquiry?

Geoff Hoon: That is precisely why it is necessary to conduct a further examination of the report, of the basis of the report and of the evidence on which the board of inquiry relied. That is what the Government are doing. The difficulty I have this evening in responding to the points made by Opposition Members—certainly from the Opposition Front Bench—is that they do not appear interested in that further analysis or consideration. They appear to want simply to accept the recommendations of a Select Committee in the other place without further consideration. Unless I have misread the motion, that seems to be what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden has been saying this evening.

Martin O'Neill: Will my right hon. Friend share with us some of the ways in which his Department will look afresh at the issue in the light of the Jauncey report? The report placed a great deal of emphasis on the evidence question and what the weight of evidence should be. I know that my right hon. Friend is a distinguished lawyer; is he likely to seek advice from the Attorney-General or the Advocate General? Many of us are worried about this being an in-house MOD response, and believe that the whole Government machine should be involved.

Geoff Hoon: I will deal with both those points in due course. Before that, I should like to say something about the critical comments made by the Select Committee in the other place about Air Marshals Sir John Day and Sir William Wratten. Whatever views exist as to their conclusions, I hope that the House will accept that the air marshals' decision was taken neither lightly nor easily. The judgment was taken with the utmost care, the fullest consideration of all the available evidence and the application of the highest standards of professionalism and airmanship.
	The air marshals are experienced and highly professional senior officers, both experts in their field. Sir John Day, in his evidence to the Committee, described it as the most difficult decision that he has ever had to make in his career. He has also said that it is the decision that he thought most hard about, being only too well aware of the immense consequences of what he believed his professional judgment required him to say. Nobody would wish to find someone negligent, especially someone who has died, unless they were convinced beyond any doubt.
	In that regard, it was extraordinarily disappointing to hear Lord Chalfont on the radio this morning suggesting that the problem was that senior members of the Royal Air Force were "reluctant to change their minds and to appear to lose face." In my view, that is unfair, unnecessary and thoroughly disrespectful to those who have risked their life on behalf of this country.
	I cannot this evening—nor should anyone reasonably expect me to do so on behalf of the Ministry of Defence—give a thorough examination of the various facts raised by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. To do so, inevitably, as his three questions indicate, would go so far as to reveal a conclusion that I am simply not in a position to give. It would not be right and proper, on behalf of a Government who are studying this Select Committee report thoroughly, to respond in anything like the detail that he has requested. He has set out his views clearly on more than one occasion, and he is unlikely to change them. However, it is right for the Government to consider carefully what has been said.
	On the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), I have sought further advice from counsel, to which I shall pay careful regard. We have also asked Boeing to undertake a review of its original analysis of the last seconds of the Chinook's flight, including a full simulation of FADEC—the full authority digital engine control system. This morning, the campaign, in the person of Lord Chalfont, suggested that that was a totally irrelevant and pointless exercise. I would be interested to know whether the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden believes that to be the case.

David Davis: My earlier point was that the flaw in the air marshals' argument in the first instance was the heavy reliance on that simulation. All it amounts to is an electronic guess; it is a postulation of what might have happened. Even if we accept that the Secretary of State cannot comment on the underpinning of the re-analysis—I do not accept that, but let us take it as read for the moment—surely he can tell us that independent oversight of the re-run of the simulation is possible. We should not simply leave it to Boeing, which is, after all, parti pris in this exercise: it has an interest in the reputation of its helicopter. No one would accept a simulation or evidence that depends solely on those who have something to gain from the continuance of this miscarriage of justice.

Geoff Hoon: I am prepared to make the evidence produced in the light of the remodelling process available for independent analysis. I shall certainly make it available to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, and others in the campaign will be able to subject it to appropriate scrutiny.
	I am interested in a fact that the right hon. Gentleman rather skated over. One purpose of the process is carefully to examine the speed of the aircraft at the relevant time. He suggested—I am prepared to be corrected if I am wrong—that there was no evidence whatsoever of the aircraft's speed. However, if only on a basic mathematical assessment of the time taken in the journey's course, it is possible to estimate the likely speed simply by dividing the time taken by the distance travelled. That will provide an estimate of the average speed during the journey—that is not, I accept, conclusive evidence of the aircraft's speed at the point in question, but it is part of the purpose of the modelling analysis.

David Davis: That argument has been tried before, but the House of Lords rebutted it on the grounds that it was dependent on averages. The aircraft travelled at about 150 knots from Belfast, Aldergrove to the way point, but that is not to say that it did not slow down when it was looking for the reference point of the lighthouse. We simply do not know: that is the point. The level of evidence that we need is absolute certainty—not hypothesis, averages or a convenient guess that fits the case.

Geoff Hoon: I am not sure that I was right to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I had just made precisely that point. Perhaps he feels the need to embellish it for me, but I pointed out that it was possible to provide some evidence of the aircraft's speed, but that it was not conclusive regarding the speed at the way point change. Nevertheless, it helps us to form a judgment about what took place. I noticed that he did not correct my suggestion that he had earlier said that there was no evidence whatever.

James Arbuthnot: My right hon. Friend said that there was no evidence of the speed at the way point change.
	On the simulation that the right hon. Gentleman is recommissioning, does he accept the point raised by Tony Collins, a journalist from Computer Weekly, that modern aircraft are so complicated technically that it is impossible for the purchaser, or anyone but the manufacturer, precisely to understand what the computer code has done. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the same would apply to simulations in circumstances as unbelievably complicated as those of this crash?

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. My only reservation about agreeing completely is that I have seen so much nonsense written about the subject in Computer Weekly. Some evidence may be acceptable, but the way in which that journal hysterically pursues the subject does not give me cause to accept anything that it says at face value. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not accepting an assertion by a representative of Computer Weekly at this stage.
	It is important for the Government to have the best possible evidence. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members accept that. The modelling tool available at the time did not include FADEC. The engineers who conducted the original simulation factored in the known FADEC performance criteria. We have asked Boeing to undertake more advanced modelling by including the FADEC flight system. I want to be confident that we have the most accurate information about what happened in order to make the most informed judgment. It is difficult to understand how that approach can be criticised.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Before the Secretary of State leaves the findings of the air marshals, he has twice referred to findings of negligence but, as I understand it, the test applied and found was one of gross negligence. That means a voluntary course of action taken deliberately at the time. I ask my right hon. Friend to apply himself to this question. If I am right, that test is indistinguishable, in truth, from the test of recklessness applied in criminal law. If that is so and the burden of proof applies in that sense, how, in view of the expert evidence, could they possibly have arrived at that conclusion?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. and learned Friend makes a point that I have made myself about the legal test applicable to the case. It is interesting to read the House of Lords Select Committee report, in which, notwithstanding the legal distinction of some of the participants, there appears to be confusion between recklessness and negligence. Without giving the House a legal lecture, which it does not need at this stage of the evening, I believe that the expression "gross negligence" is not particularly helpful, which is why the rules that apply to boards of inquiry have been changed since this case. That still leaves us with my earlier point: that in order to do justice to the case, it is necessary to apply the rules that faced the board of inquiry at the relevant time.

Edward Leigh: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is a reasonable man. Does he accept the comment made by the Public Accounts Committee, which develops the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)—that
	"the burden of proof of 'no doubt whatsoever' requires that gross negligence be positively identified as the cause of the crash, not simply that it be used as the default explanation when the Department cannot find an alternative"?
	The Secretary of State nods. Does he agree?

Geoff Hoon: I certainly accept that it is necessary to examine carefully the legal basis on which the board of inquiry reached its conclusion. I have just criticised the concept of gross negligence as being difficult for most lawyers to understand and apply—a difficulty that the Select Committee encountered. I have asked for further legal opinion in order properly to satisfy myself that the right legal approach was adopted at the time. As I said, it is important that any analysis is consistent with the rules that the board of inquiry had to follow.
	I have given way on every occasion that I can in this debate. The Government have every intention of producing a full response as soon as possible. We shall certainly do so within the six-month period allowed for replying to such reports, but that should not be understood as delay. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that this is an extraordinarily complex matter. It is right and proper that the report is fully and carefully assessed and that, where appropriate, further detailed technical work and investigations are undertaken. We naturally want to have the best possible advice, but that inevitably takes time. I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members for the fact that I cannot say more this evening. To that extent the debate is bound to disappoint those who initiated it.

Lady Hermon: rose—

Geoff Hoon: I had only one more sentence but I shall certainly give way to the hon. Lady.

Lady Hermon: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the conclusion of the report of the Select Committee on Defence in 1998? It noted that "great sensitivity" was required in investigating fatal accidents in the armed forces. Will he please explain how taking a further six months shows "great sensitivity" to those involved, especially the widows who are still left with doubt and with stigma attached to the reputation of the two flight lieutenants?

Geoff Hoon: In order to reach a properly considered result it is necessary to do the Select Committee, the House and all those who have an interest in that tragic incident the courtesy of carefully considering their arguments. That is what the Government intend to do; it is certainly what I have been trying to do ever since I assumed my current responsibilities. I am sorry if a wait of a few more months before the Government reach their conclusions appears insensitive in any way.
	I do not accept that for a moment, however. We want to examine the report with appropriate care, to consider the factual evidence on which the Committee relied, to find new evidence if any can be found and to subject to proper analysis the Committee's technical conclusions and the legal basis for its report. I acknowledge the comment of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden that this is not a party political issue, so I hope that the whole House agrees that it is only appropriate that the Government have the opportunity to reach those carefully considered conclusions.

Menzies Campbell: I begin by commending the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and his colleagues for allowing part of a day that was within their gift to be given over to discussion of this topic. I confess that I was not optimistic enough to believe that putting my name to the motion would mean that the Secretary of State would come to the Dispatch Box and concede that the motion should be passed unanimously. However, this opportunity affords us the chance to engage in the merits of an issue that causes great concern on both sides of this House and of the other place.
	As has already been pointed out, this is not—nor should it be—a party political matter. The Select Committee, under the leadership of Lord Chalfont, was drawn from all parties on both sides of the House. The Secretary of State may have had some criticism of Lord Chalfont, but it is fair to say that the noble Lord has certainly, with a high degree of commitment, tried to ensure that these matters are properly considered in the House and in the other place.
	I do not for a moment challenge the integrity of Ministers past or present or of the senior officers of the Royal Air Force who were engaged in the decision. I make no allegations whatever of bad faith. As it happens, I know Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day personally. However, I believe that an error of judgment has been made in this case, and I am left with the suspicion that, had proper legal advice been made available to the board of inquiry in the later stages of its consideration, it is highly unlikely that it would have reached the conclusion that now exercises so many of us. I hope that the reform of boards of inquiry to which the Secretary of State has referred will afford the opportunity for those charged with the difficult task of determining such matters to take legal advice of the highest quality.
	As I believe that an error of judgment has been made, there has, in turn, occurred an injustice. That injustice should be put right. Parliament exists for the redress of grievances and the families of the two pilots certainly have a grievance. They are entitled to seek to persuade the House to put that right on their behalf. In saying that, I do not for an instant ignore the feelings and emotions of the relations of the other two deceased crewmen and of the 25 passengers. However, I venture to offer this thought: I doubt whether any of them would derive comfort from the notion that a miscarriage of justice had been committed and allowed to persist. On several occasions, I have received direct communication from the relations of passengers—although not in every case—saying that they supported, albeit not publicly, the efforts being made to try to deal with a matter that, in the minds of so many, has created an injustice.
	The Government's position—frequently repeated and rehearsed by Ministers at the Dispatch Box and on television, radio and elsewhere—is that if there is new evidence they would be prepared to open the inquiry, but if there is no new evidence, there is no justification for reopening the inquiry, so the original finding stands. If that position is to be maintained, it can be maintained only in the teeth of the findings, first, of the fatal accident inquiry and, secondly, of the report of the Lords Select Committee.
	That position assumes that the original finding is unchallengeable because it was infallible. We thus have to look at the standard of proof that was required—yes, with the benefit of hindsight; but also with a rigorous intellectual approach.

David Trimble: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman proceeds with that thought, may I take him back to the Government's view that the matter should be reopened only if there is new evidence? Is it appropriate to maintain that position, given the analogy with criminal convictions? The law has been changed to allow those cases to be reopened when there is no new evidence but when there are grounds for believing that a mistake has been made. Should not the Secretary of State's approach to boards of inquiry be analogous to that now adopted by the law with regard to criminal convictions?

Menzies Campbell: As well as being the leader of his party, the right hon. Gentleman is by profession a lecturer on law—

David Trimble: Was.

Menzies Campbell: Once a lecturer on law, always a lecturer on law; I am happy to accede to the right hon. Gentleman's proposition.
	The original inquiry was—at least generically—a tribunal. It was necessary for it to gather and consider evidence, to reach conclusions on that evidence and then to exercise a judgment. As the Secretary of State rightly said, when we consider the quality of that decision we must do so on the basis on which it was taken and in the light of the rules applying at the time.
	In parenthesis, I have always wondered whether, if an action of judicial review had been taken within the conventional time limit for bringing such actions, such an action would inevitably have succeeded. I have never received sufficient answer on that point.
	Like those charged with the responsibility of the board of inquiry, however, we have to consider the matter against the background of the rules then applying. At the heart of that consideration were the rules of the Royal Air Force, which required absolutely no doubt. It is instructive to read paragraph 14 of the Select Committee's report—those words have already been echoed to some extent. The paragraph in the report stated that paragraph 9 of the rules
	"demanded a particularly high standard of proof, higher than is required of the prosecution in a criminal case in the United Kingdom ('beyond reasonable doubt'), and much higher than is required in civil litigation ('on the balance of probabilities'). It was no doubt set so high because deceased aircrew are no longer available to offer their own account of events."
	That is to say, it was provided as a protection for deceased aircrew. The report continues:
	"We consider that it requires all other plausible explanations for the crash to have been positively excluded. If any such explanations remain possibilities, the standard of proof has not been met."
	That effectively means that someone could be convicted of murder in England and Scotland on a standard of proof lower than that necessary to be achieved before any finding not of gross negligence, but of negligence, could be established.
	Having considered that, let us remind ourselves of the fact not only that that standard was considered by the Select Committee, but that in determining what his conclusions should be in the fatal accident inquiry, the sheriff, Sir Stephen Young—to whom I shall return in a moment—was unwilling, on a balance of probabilities, to hold that the MOD explanation had been established.
	These are human affairs, and it is inevitable that emotions will play a part. I believe that it is inevitable that those campaigning for the pilots will find 100 per cent. objectivity difficult to maintain; equally, those intent on sustaining the original decision may be similarly disadvantaged. That is why we must try to divorce ourselves from those emotional considerations and look outside and elsewhere.
	I have already referred to Sheriff Sir Stephen Young, who considered 16 days of evidence, when all the relevant interests in the crash were represented by counsel or solicitors and there was the opportunity for cross-examination. Yet despite all that, on a balance of probabilities—the appropriate standard in a fatal accident inquiry, which in Scotland is roughly, but not entirely, equivalent to a coroner's inquest in England—the sheriff was unable to support the MOD conclusion. To those hon. Members who have not yet done so, I recommend reading that judgment, because it is as close an analysis of the issues involved as one could hope for, and it reflects extremely favourably on Sheriff Sir Stephen Young—a reflection that is also corroborated by references in the Select Committee report.
	The second external point of reference is the House of Lords inquiry—chaired by Lord Jauncey, one of Scotland's most eminent judges of recent times—and composed of four, plus himself, independently minded peers. Against that background—first, of the fatal accident inquiry and, secondly, of that report—how on earth can anyone say that the standard of absolutely no doubt whatever can have been achieved?
	I have heard it said, anecdotally, that the unwillingness of those with initial responsibility to accept a different conclusion may be based on a determination to maintain the integrity of the inquiry system or, indeed, the chain of command. As for the inquiry system, as the Secretary of State has already told us, the regulations have been changed, but as for the integrity of the chain of command, of course, that is important. Anyone with any knowledge or understanding of the armed services knows that the integrity of the chain of command is essential for good order and discipline and that it must be respected; but how much more is the chain of command likely to be respected if those involved are sufficiently confident to recognise when an error of judgment may have been made and should be corrected?
	In the conduct of public affairs—perhaps no more frequently than for those Ministers who occupy the Treasury Bench this evening—the exercise of judgment is commonplace. I think no less of those who acknowledge that they have made an error of judgment and are anxious to put it right. In particular, I have in mind Sir Malcolm Rifkind, with whom I have talked about this matter and whose views are now well known as a result of the interviews that he has given on radio and television, and of at least one article that he has written in a national newspaper. I believe that—if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker—the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), who was also a Minister at the MOD at the relevant time, may have something to say about what he now believes, compared with the part that he played in the original decision.
	The last paragraph of the Select Committee report is as succinct a statement as one could possibly hope for:
	"How could it be that a very experienced crew, having planned to fly VFR, having taken when probably visual with the Mull the appropriate steps to alter course, when there was nothing to prevent them flying northwards within sight of the coast, flew into the Mull? It is as Sir John and Sir William speculatively described 'incomprehensible' . . . and 'astonishing'."
	The last sentence reads:
	"We shall never know."
	That paragraph and, indeed, the whole report make it clear that we are in a climate of uncertainty. In a climate of uncertainty, how can the original decision possibly stand?

Martin O'Neill: I am pleased to follow the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), as I agree with much of what he said and with the way he addressed the issue this evening. This is a difficult issue, and I am not altogether certain that the tactic of holding this debate tonight was the best one. There is a case for holding a debate, but it is certainly the case that the other place responds to Select Committee reports in a rather more leisurely way than we expect Ministers to do in the House. Having said that, a report of the complexity and rigour of that produced by Jauncey requires time.
	I have considerable sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not only in the length of time that he wants to take over this issue, but in ensuring that previous evidence that is now regarded as suspect is re-examined. I do not pour scorn on the desire to carry out other simulations, but I would include the qualification that, if they are carried out, they ought to involve a degree of independence. I accept that there is a devilishly difficult problem—such is the complexity of the equipment and the monitoring, that, outside the companies and the customers, not many people are capable of interpreting the data, but it is incumbent on the MOD to seek a means of doing that.
	I should like to think that, equally, some of the legal advice that my right hon. Friend is seeking will be incorporated in the reply in a form that lay people such as ourselves can not only understand, but identify as legal advice. Many hon. Members have had misgivings about that because there has been a sense that the MOD has dealt with this issue as an in-house operation. There is often the rather depressing form of reaction to any evidence that emerges. There is more than a smack of the Bourbons about the MOD; it repeatedly conveys the impression of having learned nothing and forgotten nothing. In part, that is attributable to the incrementalist way in which the evidence was gathered prior to Jauncey.
	A number of the reports seized on technical data and other matters. Very often, the technical data were probably less than the sum of their parts, but we have now got a comprehensive collection of all the available evidence, which has been addressed with considerable style. I use the word "style" without in any way wishing to undermine the content on which the work is based. Indeed, many of us who have discussed this matter with Ministers—I have probably been at this game as long as most and longer than pretty well anyone else—have heard the mantra that pilots of Chinook ZD 576 flew at the wrong speed, on the wrong course, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, in poor weather and visibility, and caused the helicopter to crash.
	That was the standard response from Ministers at the Dispatch Box or in private conversation. It was put a little more eloquently by Sir William Wratten, when he said:
	"Lamentably, all the evidence points towards them"—
	that is, the pilots—
	"having ignored one of the basic tenets of airmanship, which is never to attempt to fly visually below safety altitude unless weather conditions are unambiguously suitable for operating under visual flight rules."

John Wilkinson: Is that not the case? To do anything other than what the hon. Gentleman has described is to imperil the aircraft and to fly it in a grossly negligent manner.

Martin O'Neill: The hon. Gentleman is making my point for me. For men of the distinction of the pilots who have been accused of gross negligence, nothing would be further from their training, their habits or their behaviour. We are dealing with an element of gross negligence—everyone is agreed that it is extremely difficult to prove—involving pilots of the highest calibre, men who expressed misgivings about the craft that they were flying prior to the incident, men who would not take risks, having been so open and frank with their superiors and with others. They said that they had worries about the aircraft that they were required to fly. It might be said that that story could be fabricated, but it comes over in the evidence time and time again.

John Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman is most generous. Will he take it from me that history is littered with the wreckage of the careers and lives of the most experienced and wonderful pilots, who for various reasons seem to have broken all the rules and killed themselves, and perhaps others? That is a sad fact of aviation history.

Martin O'Neill: I have heard that argument advanced before. I accept the point. I return to the responsibility with which the men concerned were charged. They had to take the cargo or the assets, whichever word we want to use. They had to take some of the most important people who were engaged in a war. Two of them were in the one aircraft at the one time, behaving negligently. I find that hard to understand.
	The air marshals have always fairly maintained that the pilots never saw Mull and that no technical failure or malfunction occurred that deprived the pilots of control up to the point of impact. Lastly, the Boeing simulator provided a reasonably accurate demonstration of the aircraft's movements for a period prior to impact. These were the assertions made by Ministers and by the air marshals. In paragraph 148 of the Jauncey report, we find the greatest single charge against that view. The Select Committee states:
	"We consider that Sir John's conclusions on this matter"—
	that is, gross negligence—
	"must be weakened by his reliance on matters which he treated as facts but which have been demonstrated to our satisfaction to be not facts but merely hypotheses or assumptions."
	That is the most telling part of all the reports.
	If we are to read the interrogation or cross-examination that results in that conclusion, we see that it is not coming from someone who wishes to dissemble, or someone who wishes to put out a picture that is not true. It seems that we have almost lost sight of the wood for the trees. There is a welter of data. It must be said—this is one of the shortcomings of the tribunal system—that those with the greatest expertise are not necessarily the best people to weigh evidence. That is what the sheriff was able to do. It was what Lord Jauncey and his colleagues, doubtless under his direction, were able to do. That is where we are moving into new territories.
	In the past, I have questioned people's integrity. I worried about the fact that there was a war. I have been concerned about technical data. I do not think that we need concern ourselves with those issues now. We have the facts. The way in which the inquiry has conducted its affairs requires our response. I hope that tonight we do not have votes and a confrontation. I hope that we can give the Government more time to pause and reflect.
	It could be said that for the Department to change its mind on this issue is akin to a large tanker turning round. I make no reference to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). Much reassessment is required. It is correct that before such a process is undergone, every piece of evidence both for and against is submitted to the greatest scrutiny. That is why I do not disparage the attempt to re-engage with Boeing on this issue.
	I would like to think that the young men concerned—the members of the crew who were with them and their passengers—and their families will know that justice has been done. At present, too many people believe that justice has yet to be done.

James Arbuthnot: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill). Today, our thoughts are with the crews of the Chinook helicopters that are about to fly out from Odiham to Afghanistan. I live three miles from Odiham, and I have fought to keep the Chinook base there because the local community is so proud of what the Chinook fleet does for the country.
	We know that the crews will acquit themselves well in Afghanistan. We know that they will acquit their country with great honour, because they always do. A year or so ago, they acquitted themselves utterly brilliantly in Sierra Leone, and we know that they will do no less in Afghanistan.
	Our thoughts are also with the families of the crews. Being left behind is one of the hardest tasks of all. The families will be hoping, as will we all, that their loved ones will come back safely. Yesterday, the Secretary of State told us that there may be casualties in Afghanistan. The families will know that if, God forbid, something dreadful happens during the campaign, they will not have to go through the agonies that the families of Jonathan Tapper and Rick Cook have been through. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) has said, the Royal Air Force has rightly changed the rules. The attribution of blame for negligence is now left to the civil courts. However, it is not enough to change the rules when we see that the rules are not working. If the Royal Air Force imposes rules on itself it, like everybody else, it is obliged to follow them. The key rule in all of this is the rule,
	"Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased air crew be found negligent."
	That is what the RAF manual says; that is the rule that the RAF imposed on itself for good reason; that is the rule that it is obliged to obey and that is the rule that it broke.
	In the debate on defence policy on 14 February, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ruislip- Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made the best defence I have yet heard of the decision by the Ministry of Defence to stick to the verdict of the board of inquiry. He made a number of important points. First, he said that an aircraft that had not had clearance from the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscombe Down should never again
	"be allowed to perform such an important mission".
	I agree. Only the day before the crash, Boscombe Down had not only failed to clear the aircraft, it had refused even to allow the continuance of test-flying of the Chinook mark 2. Perhaps the most poignant thing is that days before the crash Rick Cook had asked his father to look after his family if things went wrong; it seemed that he knew that the aircraft was not yet ready.
	That brings me to my first question to the Minister. In his winding-up speech on 14 February, the Minister of State for Defence asked
	"all Members to take their consideration beyond the technical aspects of the report and the terrible tragedy that occurred."
	He continued:
	"We also have to examine the airmanship decisions taken by the pilots on the day."—[Official Report, 14 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 382, 410.]
	Of course, he was right. However, those who defend the decision of the board of inquiry now tend to say, "Well, something may have gone wrong with the aeroplane, but it should not have been there at that time, at that speed and in those conditions." Can the Under-Secretary of State for Defence say whether the MOD accepts that indeed there may have been a fault in FADEC? After all, the MOD was taking Textron Lycoming to arbitration, so something must have been wrong. Will the Minister say, preferably yes or no, whether the MOD accepts that there could at least be some doubt about the air-worthiness of the helicopter's control system? If the answer is no, what on earth was the arbitration about? More to the point, why on earth did the arbitration succeed?

Tam Dalyell: Is the right hon. Gentleman not shocked that apparently the then Secretary of State, Malcolm Rifkind, a personal friend of mine, was not told that arbitration was going on? Should not someone in the MOD have said, "Look, Secretary of State, we think you ought to know that all this arbitration is going on and may be relevant."?

James Arbuthnot: Yes, I am shocked that Malcolm Rifkind was not told. Someone in the MOD should have said, "Look, Secretary of State, something is going on." However, the present Secretary of State should recognise that that is a new fact and was not available to the board of inquiry when it reported. For Ministers to come to the House, or speak on television or radio programmes, and say that the various inquiries have produced nothing new is an utter travesty of the truth.

Debra Shipley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, given the quality of this evening's contributions, that it would reflect well on the MOD and the armed forces to acknowledge that things were not as they should have been? There is a need for change—there has indeed been a culture of change—and we must progress more constructively.

James Arbuthnot: I agree; the hon. Lady makes a fair point. If the Secretary of State, Ministers and senior officers and officials in the MOD said, "Yes, we recognise that the verdict has to be reopened," there would be no criticism of the MOD at all; everybody would accept that it was doing the right thing for the right reasons. That would be an excellent step for it to take.
	I shall now turn to the crux of the speech made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ruislip- Northwood last month, which was broadly in support of the contention that the pilots should not have been there at all. As it turned out, of course, indeed they should not have been, but the question is, why were they? My hon. Friend said that their lordships, in their Select Committee finding, were "wise after the event". Of course they were, and so must we be. My hon. Friend said that their lordships had
	"not flown helicopters at low level in difficult weather conditions."—[Official Report, 14 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 383.]
	Of course they had not. Neither, as I understand it, has Air Marshal Sir William Wratten. I do not criticise him for that; he is a fast jet pilot, and of course fast jets operate in wholly different conditions from helicopters.
	However, their lordships are in a position to judge whether the weather conditions were difficult or not. Having done an exhaustive analysis of all the evidence, their lordships came to the conclusion that it was impossible to know what weather conditions the pilots were experiencing as they approached the mull.

John Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend is most generous. We do know what the weather was. There were 10 witnesses on the Mull of Kintyre and they all confirmed that the mull was in cloud and that the cloud obscured the lighthouse. There had been a forecast of a 30 per cent. probability of IMC—instrument meteorological conditions—with visibility of about 500 m and low cloud in the vicinity of the mull. The weather report of the naval pilot speaks of cloud stratus at 200 ft and visibility of a quarter of a mile at worst. There was exceptionally bad weather all around the mull.

James Arbuthnot: Well, it seems odd, then, that Mr. Holbrook could have seen sun glinting on the helicopter. My hon. Friend's point about there being a number of witnesses on the mull is true. There were a number of witnesses on the mull, but all the witnesses were either on the mull itself or at sea level, so they were not able to determine what the pilots were able to see at their height. They were in different conditions.
	I have not understood, and I do not think that the Select Committee in another place understood, why Mr. Holbrook was sailing among a number of different fishing vessels, yet no evidence was taken from the skippers on those vessels—in fact, none of the skippers of those other fishing vessels were even sought, let alone found or evidence taken from them.
	There is no understanding of what the pilots saw because there is no evidence of what the pilots could see. There was no cockpit voice recorder; we do not know what they were saying to each other. There was no black box. There is no other evidence of what the pilots themselves could or could not see. The Select Committee reports Mr. Holbrook as having said that he
	"considered that the crew of the aircraft when he saw it could determine without ambiguity where the Mull was and could see the cliffs, beach and lower perimeter walls of the lighthouse complex."
	The air marshals, though, did not know that Mr. Holbrook thought that. The reason that they did not know was that they did not ask him. Their lordships said that they asked Mr. Holbrook only three questions, only one of which
	"was relevant to weather, namely whether he could see the physical features of the cliff on the Mull."
	To that, he replied no.
	In other words, when my hon. and gallant Friend says, as he did last month, that the crew were flying in very marginal weather, we do not know whether that is true. Anyway, I remind him that the board of inquiry was obliged to take that view only if there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". Mr. Holbrook, who was there, clearly goes further than to doubt it. He disagrees with the proposition.
	I have two further points to make. First, the standard of proof required, of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever", is extraordinarily high. It is intentionally high because in cases where pilots are unable to defend themselves, the RAF rightly tries to look after its own personnel, who are, after all, flying an aircraft provided by the RAF.
	Last month I took the liberty of saying where I felt that the air marshals had failed to apply the right test. I said that Air Marshal Sir John Day got it wrong when he said:
	"In my judgment, none of the possible factors and scenarios are so strong that they would have been likely to prevent such an experienced crew from maintaining safe flight."
	In using the word "likely" as he did, he was applying the wrong test. I believe that he genuinely did not understand that, and I believe that some of the Ministers who have since dealt with the matter have also genuinely not understood that.
	For example, on 11 July 2000, the Minister for Transport, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), then the Minister of State in the Ministry of Defence, answered a written question from me about the health of the two pilots shortly before the crash. His answer was that
	"The Board of Inquiry concluded that the mental and physical state of Flight Lieutenants Tapper and Cook was most unlikely to have been a factor in the accident".—[Official Report, 11 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 454W.]
	But likelihood has got nothing to do with the issue. There has to be "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". So here we have another element of doubt—could the mental or physical state of one of the pilots, or possibly of both of them, have been a factor in the accident? We do not know, as with so much of the rest of the case.
	And now I come on to my final point, which is this. On 1 June 1995 there was another crash. A Harrier GR7, flight number ZG 475, crashed into the sea and, sadly, the pilot was killed. In the RAF board of inquiry report that followed, there was no finding of negligence, and that was obviously the right conclusion. One important paragraph from that report reads as follows:
	"The investigation was able to eliminate technical fault, structural failure and birdstrike as possible causes of the accident. The investigation focused, therefore, on the human factor aspects. Although there was no evidence to suggest that the pilot had been medically incapacitated, the Inquiry could not rule out the possibility that he may have been partially incapacitated for a period before the application of full back stick. It also considered feasible that the pilot may have been distracted by other in-cockpit tasks during the descent and did not notice the proximity of the sea."
	If an RAF board of inquiry could make such a finding—a correct finding—in relation to a single pilot in an aeroplane which contained an accident data recorder or black box, how could a board of inquiry possibly make a different finding in relation to an aeroplane which had numerous technical problems, which did not have a black box and which could have been under the control of either one of the two pilots at the time? How can it possibly rule out all question of illness? How can it possibly rule out even questions of disagreement between the two pilots? Obviously it cannot.
	This verdict flies in the face of all reason and it flies in the face of all justice. If these pilots can be cleared by a Select Committee in another place, we should do the same.

Frank Field: I can be mercifully brief tonight. I wish to make only one point. That is not because I disagree with the comments of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have contributed to the debate; they have made their points in a most effective and superb style. I merely wish to take the House back to one comment that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) made in his speech, and that was that this House should not question the integrity of the air chief marshals. It is proper that we should not question their integrity and that the House should be careful before commenting on people who are not Members of the House who cannot be here to defend themselves.
	But given the way in which the debate continues to rumble on and for the evidence to be gathered as it is, I do believe that we have to put by the side of integrity, which none of us are doubting, an equally important quality, and that is judgment. It is not the judgment of anybody that we are talking about. When we are talking about Sir John Day, we are talking about somebody who is at the very centre of the defence of this country.
	While, of course, I can understand the Government wanting to take time and to choose the moment when they will respond to a Select Committee report of the other place, I believe that we have reached the point now where we are not questioning the effect of allowing this decision to stand on the morale of the services, but on the judgment of the electorate in the wider field. If people at the very centre of the defence of this country maintain a judgment in spite of all the evidence that is being put forward, that raises some terrifying question marks. I therefore hope that when the Government come to respond, it is not a question whether we should defend people who have been asked to make the decision and who still have a role in public life; it is a much bigger issue than that.
	I bring us back to the central idea that has dominated this debate. We are not in a court, weighing up evidence or coming to a conclusion on that evidence. The tribunal, to use the phrase that others have used, had to have "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" about the evidence before it. When I hear the Government asking for even more simulations from the manufacturers, I worry that we might be in danger of not seeing the wood for the simulated models. There is now a body of evidence that does not prove that the pilots were innocent but that does suggest doubt. That is the issue on which the Government must concentrate their mind. It is not right to look for new evidence; the evidence must be weighed. After weighing it, on every point, the Government must be certain that they can dismiss it to maintain the judgment. The slightest glint of doubt in the Secretary of State's mind must bring him to a conclusion that the judgment is unsound and unsatisfactory and must be put aside.
	Of course, in debates such as this, it is easy for us to forget the pilots, their memory and their families, and the numbers of people who were killed on that day and their families, who, clearly, will never get over this horrendous event. However, we are not debating our feelings towards them, as crucial as that is in another sphere. We are debating whether the Government, despite all the evidence that has been put forward, can maintain that there is "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" that the decision made by the tribunal is correct. I do not believe that anybody who is rational can maintain that.
	Therefore, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the longer this goes on, the greater the worry not merely that the air chief marshals' judgment—not their integrity—might be wrong but that, perhaps for the wrong motives, the Ministry of Defence will come to a wrong judgment again. It is bad enough if one comes to a wrong judgment in taking away somebody's income support. One can often make good that mistake on a later occasion. However, we are talking about a small core of people on whose judgment the security of our country rests. We are in deeply worrying territory in which the Government still cannot make up their mind and come to a judgment, on the weight of the evidence, as to whether the tribunal inquiry verdict should be set aside.
	Although the Government are of course right to take time, to work within the six months, and to choose the moment at which they wish to make their decision, the debate has rumbled on at length, here and elsewhere in the country. More and more people are not just talking about the integrity of the air chief marshals; they are beginning to talk about the judgment and the wisdom of the people who have the security of this realm as their first priority. 9.10 pm

Robert Key: I am most grateful for the measured and informed way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) initiated the debate. He was followed in similar terms by the right hon. and learned Member for North- East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). I wish to add to their remarks, not to repeat them. I agree with everything that they said.
	For 18 years, I have had the honour to represent more than 11,000 employees of the Ministry of Defence, including those who work at Boscombe Down where the RAF has been present with scientific and industrial civil servants who are engaged on the business of evaluating the RAF's aircraft. I have therefore been prone to support the chain of command and Defence Ministers of whatever Government and to recognise that they need our support in peacetime as well as in time of conflict. However, just as I am about to conclude that they may have got it right after all in this case, something happens to make me realise that they have got it wrong.
	For six years, with my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have been engaged deeply in this case. Initially, I did not know the families of the two brave pilots who died. I am honoured to have made their acquaintance over the years. However, I know the people who work at Boscombe Down, so I was astonished at the tone that the Ministry of Defence used in dismissing their work.
	I received a minute headed "Draft DO From AOCINC" to the assistant Chief of the Air Staff dated 6 June 1994—four days after the crash of ZD 576. The complaint was that
	"for the second time this year, because of their concerns about the safety of the FADEC system, they had stopped trials flying on the Chinook Mk 2. I understand that, in practice, they are not flying the Chinook at all. Consequently, delivery of their aircraft to RAF Odiham on 21 July to enter minor servicing will be carried by a No. 7 Squadron crew who, because of test equipment fitted to the aircraft, will operate under a Service Deviation."
	In other words, Boscombe Down was not prepared to fly the aircraft. Odiham had to send a special crew and ordered them to fly an aircraft that Boscombe Down said should not be flown.

Lady Hermon: Did the air marshals and the board of investigation have that information from Boscombe Down?

Robert Key: I have no way of knowing. I am sure that someone in the Ministry of Defence had the information, but I do not know whether it made its way to the Scottish inquiry or to the RAF board of inquiry.
	The minute again refers to Boscombe Down and states:
	"their ongoing stance towards the Mk 2 contrasts sharply with the considerable efforts being made by the front line to bring the aircraft into service and maintain a capability. It also does nothing to engender aircrew confidence in the aircraft. In sum, I find A&AEE's attitude quite incredible."
	That is an astonishing thing for any senior officer to say.
	Under questioning by the Select Committee on Defence in its fourth report, "The Lessons of the Chinook Crash on the Mull of Kintyre" published on 13 May 1998, Colonel Hodgkiss, who was at the time the assistant director of Helicopter Projects 1 at the Ministry of Defence referred to Boscombe Down and said:
	"All that it has not satisfied is an internally-imposed test procedure which Boscombe Down believe they should apply because they consider that their role is to give unequivocal advice and recommendations to the operators of the aircraft."
	Quite so—that is what Boscombe Down did. It said that the aircraft should not fly. The RAF continued to fly it and ZD 576 crashed.
	I have engaged in extensive correspondence with Ministers over the years. Allow me to quote a letter to me from the then Secretary of State for Defence, now Lord Robertson, dated 24 November 1997. He wrote:
	"I would take this opportunity to make it abundantly clear that we are satisfied, on the evidence available,"—
	on the evidence available—
	"that this accident was not the result of any technical malfunction."
	Lord Robertson then set up a meeting, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North–East Hampshire also attended.
	The atmosphere at that meeting was not especially happy, because it was clear that the Ministry of Defence had been tasked to brief us. Its representatives did not like questions—they were not used to questions—and it was clear to me even at that stage, in November 1997, that the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Air Force were not going to consider any judgments about the standards of proof. They would stick to their demand for new evidence and they, and they alone, would decide what constituted new evidence. They would deny all subsequent evidence, from 1997 onwards, presented by technical experts—even people they had employed as their own consultants. They would even seek to justify not disclosing litigation in the United States of America.
	I was astonished to find in the report that I quoted previously that when the then Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), was questioned about whether the Scottish fatal accident inquiry knew of the United States case, he replied:
	"Had the sheriff in any way indicated any interest in that, of course he would have been supplied with it as he was with everything else. There is an endless potential mine of information on tens of thousands of components in a Chinook. It is not possible to just load them on to a sheriff. We gave what we think was relevant to our Board of Inquiry and supplied anything the sheriff might want to ask for."
	What an extraordinary way in which to carry out any inquiry.
	About that time, I visited the Defence Procurement Agency down in Abbey Wood for a briefing on its new functions and systems. I met the team that was engaged full-time in defending the Ministry of Defence's position. In 1998, there was a dedicated team at Abbey Wood; it is probably still there, answering parliamentary questions.
	Some very strange things were happening. In my years in Parliament, I have had all sorts of pressure put on me—as have we all—but never anything quite like what happened in December 1997. At that time, I attended a reception for defence contractors in a hotel in Park lane. I was approached by a highly distinguished Conservative peer who had served in the RAF during the second world war and had been a Minister in Conservative Governments. He had been asked by senior RAF officers to put me off the trail: he said that it would serve no purpose if I continued.
	None the less, I had questions for answer. I asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he would place in the Library copies of the minute relating to the Textron White Paper and the White paper itself. I asked him about the fully automated digital engine control system and whether he would put in the Library copies of the 70 incident signals relating to FADEC. I later asked if he would put in the Library
	"reports he has received from the United States authorities relating to the US Army Chinook CH-47 barrel roll incident in 1998"—[Official Report, 6 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 347W.]
	which has already been mentioned. In answer to my request for the Textron White Paper, the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), told me:
	"The subject document contains internal opinions and advice, disclosure of which would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion. Accordingly, I am withholding the information requested under exemption 2b of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information."—[Official Report, 3 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 264W.]
	The answers to my other questions cited exemptions 13, 2 and 1c. The Ministry of Defence did not wish to share the information.
	Then something extraordinary happened. On 5 December, I wrote a contemporaneous note which states that on Tuesday 2 December, I went to Carol Stone's Christmas party at the Institution of Civil Engineers. There I met a former Secretary of State for Defence who told me that, a couple of weeks previously, a senior official in the Ministry of Defence had telephoned his former special adviser to say would she please ask the former Secretary of State for Defence to persuade me to drop my pursuit of the Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash. That, in my judgment, was an extraordinary thing for a Ministry of Defence official to do.
	So it went on. We were denied information, letters were exchanged and I took up the matter with the Cabinet Secretary, who referred me back to the Secretary of State for Defence, who said that he was very sorry that I was not satisfied with the answers and that I would therefore have another briefing with officials, which I had; it was acrimonious and I will not relate it here.
	In spite of being denied evidence, and in spite of the failure to answer questions, Mr. Martin Bell, who was then a Member of Parliament, wrote to the Prime Minister. On 18 July 2000, the Prime Minister said in his reply:
	"This Government has tried to be entirely straightforward and open about the circumstances of the crash and the conduct of the Inquiry. The proceedings of the Inquiry were released. Questions have been answered fully. Any material which might have amounted to new evidence, or which might have offered fresh perspectives on the accident, has been analysed . . . I repeat to you the long-standing pledge, that I also give to Mrs. Tapper, that any new evidence would be thoroughly considered. In the absence of such grounds, however, I can see no case for re-opening the inquiry."
	This distinguished lawyer, our Prime Minister, added in his own hand:
	"I am sorry if this is a disappointing reply but we do need fresh evidence to justify re-opening this issue."
	It is not a question of new evidence but of judging existing evidence, what is meant by "absolutely no doubt whatsoever", and standards of proof. The RAF regulation required a much higher standard of proof than is required in criminal cases, including those involving murder. In criminal cases, the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt"; in civil cases, the standard is "the balance of probabilities". The latter standard was applied by the Scottish sheriff, who refused to attribute the incident to pilot error.
	Ministers accept that there is "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" as to why the two pilots were unable to avoid crashing into the Mull of Kintyre. The RAF does not know, and cannot say, why things went wrong and the aircraft was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Whatever anyone may say, no one will know the answer. Ministers also accept that there is "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" that no mechanical or computer software fault occurred. To me, both propositions are incredible. I cannot believe them, and nor would any jury.
	The issue is about honour, not money. As we have heard, the Ministry of Defence has changed the rules retrospectively—no one who dies will ever again be accused of gross negligence. The issue should be a matter of honour for this Government and this Prime Minister. He should do the decent thing and overturn that dishonourable verdict.

Lady Hermon: It is a pleasure speak in the debate, having heard the contribution of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I am greatly concerned by some of the evidence put before us this evening, and I hope that the Minister will address these issues.
	I have listened intently to hon. Members' contributions, but we should reflect for a moment or two on the personal tragedy involved. On 2 June 1994—almost eight years ago—29 people were killed outright on the Mull of Kintyre in dreadful circumstances, which were made worse by the fact that the aircraft in question caught fire. It was a great tragedy, and the circumstances proved deeply upsetting to the widows. Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten described it as
	"the largest peacetime tragedy that the Royal Air Force had suffered."
	Although my husband, a former Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, retired from the RUC some five years before that crash, I know that it was also the greatest tragedy in the RUC's history. Ten members of the police service, who were also members of special branch, died. Even today, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland rightly paid tribute, in a completely different context, to the work of special branch—not only in respect of the security of Northern Ireland, but in a wider sense.
	This morning, I spoke to one of the six RUC widows who live in my constituency. She said:
	"My husband is dead, but he still has his reputation. The MOD can do no more to him or for him, but the MOD can do more for Flight Lieutenants Tapper and Cook . . . they can clear their names and give them back their reputations."
	The fact that 29 people died caused enormous heartache and pain, as it would to anyone who lost a loved one in such dreadful circumstances. The fact that the two pilots were held to be grossly negligent was enormously painful, hurtful and offensive not only to the flight lieutenants but to the others widowed in that crash.
	Earlier, hon. Members discussed the difference between negligence and gross negligence. I may be corrected by the Minister, but I had understood that the pilots being held to be grossly negligent had at an early stage affected the compensation payable to their widows. Gross negligence made a difference. If the circumstances have changed, I should be glad to hear the Minister explain to the House the compensation issues that arise.
	The RAF's manual, which was available at the time to the air marshals and does not constitute fresh evidence, clearly states in black and white:
	"only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased air crew be found negligent".
	The manual contains guidelines on what amounts to negligence or human frailties, so it is not as though no guidance was available. Paragraph 1 of annexe G to chapter 8 of the manual states that, broadly speaking, causes of accidents fall into three categories: technical faults, natural operating or medical hazards, and human failings.
	Paragraph 2 explains what human failings amount to and suggests that judgments be made by answering two questions. The first is:
	"Was the person's act which is under consideration an essential link without which the final event would not have happened?"
	The second is:
	"Ought the person to have foreseen that their action or their failure to take action would in all probability occasion the final event?"
	The House of Lords Select Committee report concludes:
	"the question to be answered is whether there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they ought to have foreseen that their action would in all probability occasion the final event."
	Referring to the air marshals' conclusion that
	"the pilots were grossly negligent in placing the aircraft in the position in which it was at or before the way point change was made",
	it found that
	"regardless of what happened thereafter, the question to be answered is whether there is absolutely no doubt",
	and that the air marshals had not properly answered the questions.
	The Government must be fair. As I said in my intervention on the Secretary of State earlier, in considering fatal accident inquiries and investigations, great sensitivity should be used. In light of the extremely high standard required at the time, the MOD should not linger for six more months but quickly conclude that an error of judgment was made in finding that the two flight lieutenants were grossly negligent. Their names must be cleared. The MOD has an opportunity to do that, and I urge it to do so at the earliest opportunity.

John Wilkinson: The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made a deeply moving speech.
	I declare an interest as an elected companion of the Royal Aeronautical Society by virtue of five years' service on the flight safety awards panel of the Civil Aviation Authority.
	In my speech on 14 February I stated that in my judgment the air marshals were
	"justified in their belief, with the wisdom of hindsight, that the crew, who were flying in very marginal weather with high ground ahead and with the aircraft slightly off track to the right, probably ought to have aborted, or at least got well clear of the high ground with all speed."
	The point is this. On take-off, the weather forecast for the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre gave a 30 per cent. probability of weather that could by no possible stretch of the imagination be construed as suitable for flights under visual flight rules. The reports that we have make it clear that as the aircraft approached the mull the weather was indeed well below conditions for visual flight rules.
	In justifying Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten and Air Vice Marshal Sir John Day, who reviewed the board of inquiry's conclusions, I added:
	"The House would be wise not to follow the path taken in the other place, or to try to second guess the investigations of military accidents, however tragic the circumstances"—
	few could have been more tragic than these—
	"however much we sympathise with the grief".—[Official Report, 14 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 383-84.]
	There could have been no better qualified air officers commanding to review a board of inquiry's findings than those two air marshals. Air Vice Marshal Day has a BSc in aeronautical engineering from Imperial college, served two tours as a flying instructor—one in command of a flying training squadron—was a support helicopter pilot and then commanded a support helicopter squadron. Indeed, less than 10 years before the accident he commanded the base at RAF Odiham where the Chinooks are located.
	Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten is an aviator's air marshal if ever there was one—certainly, he is no Whitehall warrior. He commanded the Royal Air Force in the Gulf war and led the battle of Britain fly past a few months previously. One could not find a finer flyer and a prouder example of the best traditions of the service.
	That is not to say that the professional distinction, the Air Force crosses, the legions of merit and the aeronautical degrees immunise the two air marshals from the possibility of error, any more than long experience on Chinooks, including much time in a special forces role, precludes the possibility that two much-respected deceased flight lieutenants could commit an error of basic airmanship that constituted gross negligence.
	However, since my 14 February speech I have studied the sortie profile again and have looked in greater depth at the original conclusions of the board of inquiry, the air accidents investigation branch's findings and Sheriff Young's fatal accident inquiry, together with their recommendations and those of the House of Lords Select Committee. I did so in the knowledge that the air marshals were not callous or unfeeling or insensitive to the reputations of the pilots whom death had robbed of the right of reply. On the contrary, a lifetime of service flying, with the inevitable loss of many friends in all-too-frequent air accidents, will have taught the air marshals that military flying operations and their safe execution require standards of discipline and perfection that can never be compromised.
	Flying regulations are quite simply life preservers. Failure to comply with them is often likely to be fatal and cannot be condoned in peacetime operations. In circumstances where they are not followed, as in the case of Chinook ZD 576's attempts to maintain low-level flight according to visual flight rules, in instrument meteorological conditions, at about cruising speed, in the vicinity of high ground on the Mull of Kintyre, this cannot be exonerated by the experience of the crews. Indeed, far from being a mitigating factor, the very experience of the crew justifies the attribution of gross negligence. Sentiment cannot enter into air accident investigations; probity is what they are about.
	There is no doubt that the aircraft was flying in instrument meteorological conditions. The witnesses on or about the mull confirm that. There were 10 of them, including a lighthouse keeper whose job is to take weather reports. The aircraft's speed is not in doubt, in that it can be verified by the spread and disintegration of the wreckage at the crash site, as well as by readings recovered from the instrumentation. There was no confirmation of any technical malfunction that would, of itself, have caused the accident, and this was verified by the board of inquiry and by the air accidents investigation branch's report. The point is that the crew should not have been flying in a way that could have led to the loss of the aircraft, had there been any malfunction.

James Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend says that there was no confirmation of any technical malfunction. That is not the test. Is there a possibility that there was a technical malfunction? That is the test.

John Wilkinson: The test is the one that we are looking at today—whether gross negligence was the right finding.

Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Wilkinson: No, I cannot.
	By changing the way point from the Mull of Kintyre lighthouse to Corran, the crew deprived themselves of the certainty of the reference to the lighthouse that was their turning point. The lighthouse was in cloud and, having removed position information with reference to the mull, this could have been the crew's fatal error. Indeed, I suspect that they were looking for the mull lighthouse. We know that they were south-east of track, and that there was error on the TANS, which had been faultily programmed before flight. The engines were running normally at the time of the crash, and there was no evidence of a flying control failure that would, of itself, have precipitated the accident.
	Their lordships and their supporters have indulged in many speculations, relating to FADEC problems, control system jams, undemanded excessive left rudder input on the part of Flight Lieutenant Cook, who was flying the aircraft in the right-hand seat, and to much else besides. However, the accident parameters are entirely consistent with cruising flight into high ground, with a last-second attempt to flare the aircraft and to yaw away from the hill to port.
	As in so many accidents, there are a number of events which, while not contributory, cannot pass unremarked. It is true that Flight Lieutenant Tapper could self-authorise without a briefing officer, and if the squadron leader on duty had been available, he might perhaps have prevented the sortie by persuading the flight lieutenant not to choose the Mull of Kintyre routing in those weather conditions, or by persuading him to consider other possibilities.
	The weather is paramount here. I have mentioned the forecast of a 30 per cent. probability of instrument meteorological conditions around the mull. The actual forecast made by a qualified observer closest to the time of the accident was that of the Sea King pilot, whose log stated that there was, at worst, seven eighths stratus at 200 ft and, at best, seven eighths strato cumulus at 900 ft. The log also states that the visibility was, at worst, a quarter of a mile. The height of the top cloud was 1,500 ft, which is more or less the height of the top of mull. The weather was, therefore, in no way suitable for flight in visual flight rules.
	The crew ought to have aborted the sortie or climbed above safety altitude as soon as a deterioration occurred or as soon as there was a likelihood of deterioration. Coming in off the sea, with the fishbowl effect that occurs when flying low over water, makes these judgments particularly difficult, and makes it negligent to press on without firm visual pinpoints, which there is no evidence that the crew possessed.
	In conclusion, I can only say that the air marshals fulfilled their duty as I believe they were required to. The criteria relating to negligence are
	"Whether the person had the necessary degree of skill and/or knowledge, or should have had that skill and/or knowledge, to make the right decision and act upon it"
	and
	"Whether the person failed to exercise the degree of skill and/or knowledge required".
	Given all the evidence of the weather conditions prevailing and the flight profile decided on, I believe that the air marshals were correct, and I hope that the Ministry of Defence upholds their judgment.

Angus Robertson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. Along with the Secretary of State and every other speaker, I share the sadness of the families of the two pilots and the two crew members, and those of the 25 passengers who were on board the Chinook.
	In the run-up to the debate I was struck, as one of the newer Members, by the view—taken by many during the election campaign—that Parliament and politics are a cynical business in which there is no agreement between parties or between Members with differing opinions, on the left or on the right, on constitutional questions. I am therefore proud to take part in this debate, and to support the motion along with Members on both sides of the House. I am also humbled by the fact that others here have contributed so much in the past—for instance, the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), a long-standing campaigner on this issue, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), who made one of the most significant speeches I have heard during my short time in the House in a defence debate on 14 February, and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). We should also bear in mind the comments of the former Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands.
	Like everyone else who supports the aims of the motion, I do not think that this is a party political issue. The debate can send a powerful message to the MOD and to Ministers that elected representatives throughout the House are deeply unhappy about the findings of negligence. We are not interested in who is to blame. We would be delighted to know who will break the logjam, clear the names of Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook, and maintain the good standing of the MOD.
	Mine is primarily a constituency interest. I represent two of the largest RAF bases in the United Kingdom. I speak to many people serving on those bases, and I know that a number of them share the disquiet expressed by nearly every speaker today. They are not interested in second-guessing the motives or questioning the professionalism of those who arrived at the negligence finding; what they want, what I want and what so many who have spoken today want is natural justice. They believe that the balance of proof has not been achieved, and that this is an issue of judgment.
	This has been oft repeated, and I repeat it again: I cannot get my head around how a conclusion of negligence could have been reached in the first place, given that the test is "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". I am a great supporter of the Scots legal system—of its rigour and its high standards—and I am sure that even a first-year Scots law student just starting a course would find it difficult to understand how, if negligence could not be proved with the standard "balance of probabilities" constraints of the fatal accident inquiry, it could be proved with the higher RAF standard of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever".
	I am concerned about the prospect of a new simulator. I agree with other Members that if all that is available is an average speed, a hypothesis based on another hypothesis and inconclusive input data, a simulation will not produce a finding that will support the truth.
	I welcome the comment by the Secretary of State that he would take new legal advice. That is perhaps a glimmer of hope that we can take from the debate.
	It is not our job to prove that the flight crew were not negligent. It is up to those who support that unproven finding to prove that they were. The Government should listen to the bipartisan views expressed in this debate. They should set aside the verdict. I hope that they do so at the earliest opportunity.

Henry Bellingham: I shall be very brief. I wanted to speak in the debate for several reasons. First, I represent a large number of RAF personnel based at Marham and Coltishall. Secondly, I represent the family of Jonathan Tapper, who live in Burnham Thorpe in my constituency. Thirdly, I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Sir Malcolm Rifkind when my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) was special adviser. I have no doubt, having spoken to Sir Malcolm, that had he known at the time that the MOD had been in dispute with the manufacturers, he would not have accepted the advice of the two air marshals. I am absolutely clear on that fact.
	We have had some excellent speeches, but I just wanted to say that the families of the two pilots have been through hell and back. Their sons were found guilty of gross negligence, a finding that was not upheld by the first two inquiries and by the third inquiry of the House of Lords Select Committee. One does not have to be a lawyer to conclude that, had either of those pilots survived, they probably would have faced charges of manslaughter. We are seeing an appalling slur on their professional reputations, a slur on their families and an undermining of two young men who had an impeccable service record. Having looked at the House of Lords report very clearly, I feel that the Government have an opportunity to set aside the findings. If they do that, they will restore honour to the Department.

James Gray: The House has heard some very moving, wonderful, well-balanced speeches from both sides of the argument. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to join me in offering our renewed condolences to the families of all the 29 people who were killed in the tragic crash of Chinook ZD 576 on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994, but we pay particular tribute to the families of Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook, who have fought a long and determined campaign to change the conclusion of the original RAF board of inquiry that they were guilty of gross negligence.
	We have heard a number of outstanding speeches from hon. Members with a great deal of knowledge and interest in the tragic incident. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) has taken a long-standing interest in the case since he chaired the subsequent PAC inquiry into it. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who were the Ministers responsible for the original decision, have been very courageous in now admitting that their original judgment was incorrect. As the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) reminded the House, no one now believes that the pilots flew at the wrong speed, at the wrong height and in the wrong place, as was accepted wisdom at one time.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire also has a strong constituency interest, with RAF Odiham in his area, from where it was announced yesterday that three Chinooks were to be deployed to Afghanistan with the 45 Commando battle group. All parts of the House will wish to join him in wishing those personnel well and in thinking of the families they leave behind. Incidentally, the Minister might like to tell us whether the three Chinooks will be fitted with black box flight recorders. I hope that they will.
	Uniquely, hon. Members on both sides of the House spoke in support of the Conservative motion. I mention in particular the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who has been involved in this matter for so long, the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham). The broad cross-party agreement on the issue may be something to which Ministers will wish to pay particular attention, and in recognition of it, we will not seek to divide the House this evening.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who speaks with such authority on all aviation matters, spoke with great courage and was the only hon. Member to seek to persuade the House that the original conclusions of the air marshals were correct. I sympathise with his view that respect for the chain of command must be paramount in the maintenance of proper military discipline, and it is extremely unusual, to say the least, for this place to seek to question a conclusion that has been reached.
	In doing so—as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) reminded us—we are not seeking to challenge the honour or integrity of Ministers or senior RAF officers; we are seeking to question their judgment. The experience of the two air marshals concerned is beyond question. None the less, we would appeal to them to reconsider the conclusion that they came to four or five years ago.
	Under normal circumstances, Her Majesty's loyal Opposition go to lengths to support ministerial operational and deployment decisions. Our support for the Government on everything that they have done in Afghanistan is testimony to that. However, we have come to the clear conclusion that it really is time to revisit the MOD's original decision on the Chinook crash.
	Since the original RAF board of inquiry in 1995, there has been the fatal accident inquiry in 1996, which left wide open the question of what caused the accident. In 1998, the Select Committee on Defence stopped short of making any judgment on the cause of the crash. In 2000, the Public Accounts Committee—chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden—went further and disputed the original findings. Most recently, the Select Committee in the other place overturned the original inquiry's findings altogether.
	The sheer weight of evidence that those various inquiries have produced, and the legal and military distinction of many of those who are calling for a rethink, must give all of us cause for concern about the original conclusions.
	In particular, it would be difficult for any of us to do other than to listen carefully to the Select Committee's conclusion that
	"we have considered the justification for the Air Marshals' finding of negligence . . . against the applicable standard of proof, which required 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever'. In the light of all the evidence before us . . . we unanimously conclude that the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash."
	Now is not the time to revisit the evidence in detail. That has been done convincingly by a number of hon. Members tonight and satisfactorily by all four inquiries. Listening to them, it seems to me that the only conclusion that any dispassionate observer could possibly come to is that the sequence of events that led to the crash remain, and will always remain, to some degree unclear. We do not know what happened on the Mull of Kintyre on that fateful day, and we will never know.
	Since that is the case, it is simply incorrect to conclude that there is "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" that gross pilot negligence was to blame. No court in the land—no court in the world—would come to the conclusion that there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" that gross pilot negligence was to blame. That point alone should be more than sufficient to lead Ministers to overturn the conclusion of the RAF inquiry.
	The Secretary of State agreed in his introductory remarks that internal MOD procedures have now changed so that the sequence of events could not happen again, particularly with regard to the verdict of gross negligence, which would now have to be arrived at in a civil court. Does the Secretary of State agree that, given that these circumstances could not arise today under current law, he could surely revisit the findings of the inquiry at the time?
	The Government's amendment to the cross-party motion this evening asks the House to await their official response to the Select Committee report. Will the Under-Secretary tell the House when that will be? The Secretary of State talked generally about it being within six months. It has to be within six months, or the Government will be grossly neglecting this House. We want to know precisely when it will be. In particular, we do not want the Secretary of State to choose a particular moment to release the report; for example, as we come up to summer recess. We want him to release the Government's reply at a sensible time, and as soon as possible. In doing so, we must be certain that he will rely on more than Boeing's re-simulation, which of course would be unsatisfactory.
	In simple terms, it seems to us that the principle of innocent until and unless proved guilty should, beyond any shadow of doubt, apply in this case. There is a long and honourable tradition of an assumption against deceased pilot error in the RAF.
	Despite the Opposition's very real reluctance to do anything that might, or might be thought to, undermine the authority of the chain of command—and I reiterate our respect for the two air marshals concerned—it seems that on this occasion a very tragic miscarriage of justice has occurred. We appeal to Ministers and the RAF to take this opportunity to clear the names of these young pilots. Only then will their families be able to lay their memories to rest.

Lewis Moonie: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks that this tragic crash has generated strong feelings among all those who have been and continue to be involved in its consequences. The debate tonight has served clearly to emphasise this point, and I would like to take this opportunity, as others have, to express my sympathy to the families of the 25 passengers and four crew who were so tragically lost in that accident.
	The House of Lords Select Committee report on this complex accident requires, and is receiving, full and detailed analysis. The points made by their lordships are being reviewed and, where appropriate, further detailed technical work will be undertaken.
	One specific area that was widely reported this morning, particularly in the Scottish press, is that of the Boeing simulation. The Committee criticised the original Boeing simulation and, as part of the detailed assessment of the report that is being undertaken, it is right to seek Boeing's input. Indeed, I would expect hon. Members to criticise us if we did not do so. Boeing is the only company that makes the Chinook, and there is frankly no other way in which to carry out the simulation. We have asked that it review its original analysis of the final seconds of the Chinook's flight leading up to the crash. The level of contractor involvement in investigating the Mull accident was consistent with normal practice in military and civil aircraft investigations. Such help from manufacturers is a necessary part of such investigations.
	The board of inquiry was set up to determine the cause of the crash. It was conducted in a professional manner and the final decision was made on the available evidence. The findings were based fundamentally on airmanship and duty of care principles. The essence of the judgment of gross negligence was that all the available evidence indicated that the pilots flew a serviceable aircraft at speed and at a low level into cloud-covered high ground.

James Arbuthnot: Will the Minister give way?

Lewis Moonie: I will not have time to, I am sorry.
	In reaching its conclusion, the board had a wealth of expertise and experience available to it from all the relevant professional disciplines, including helicopter and aircraft operations and technical matters.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister give way?

Lewis Moonie: No, I shall not.
	Other authorities, such as the Defence Research Agency and the manufacturers of the aircraft, its equipment and avionics supported and made evidence available to the inquiry. A number of technical issues have been postulated over the years as possibly explaining the accident. Indeed, the Defence Committee investigated the lessons of the crash and published a most helpful report in 1998. It concluded that there was no compelling evidence to support claims of fundamental flaws in the design of the Chinook or of its components. More recently, technical issues were also examined closely by the Select Committee of the House of Lords, whose report we are fully considering.
	I should like to turn briefly to the points made during the debate and, in respect of her attempt to intervene, that of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). Compensation is a very complex issue—I shall write to the hon. Lady and place a copy of my letter in the Library.
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) is a distinguished lawyer and QC. The many points that he made about the details of the legal position are for the legal profession and not for a lay person such as myself until I am in receipt of the appropriate advice on the subject. I therefore cannot make any comments of my own on that subject until the advice that my right hon. Friend has indicated is being sought by the Ministry of Defence is to hand.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) rightly pointed out the great complexity of the equipment involved. He criticised the Ministry of Defence for dealing with the matter internally. That is so, but such is the case in virtually every complex issue that I have had to deal with over the past two years in this job, and I have so far had no cause to doubt the professionalism and attention to detail that goes into the advice that we are given, be it by our civil servants or by officers—
	It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Aircraft Noise

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15014/01, draft Directive on the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community Airports and No 5119/02, draft Directive on the establishment of a Community framework for noise classification of civil subsonic aircraft for the purposes of calculating noise charges; and supports the Government position to ensure that the proposed Directives allow the development of a coherent and balanced approach to managing noise nuisances at UK airports consistent with existing ICAO rules and standards.— [Mr. Stringer.]
	Question agreed to.

Enlargement

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 14117/01, the Commission Strategy paper and Report on the progress towards accession by each of the candidate countries with Addenda 1 to 13, the 2001 Regular Reports on progress by individual candidate countries, No. 5745/02, the Commission Communication on a Common Financial Framework 2004–2006 for the Accession Negotiations and No. 5638/02, the Commission Communication on Enlargement and Agriculture: successfully integrating the new Member States into the CAP; welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to EU enlargement, and supports the Government's aim to complete negotiations with those candidates that are ready by the end of this year, so that they can participate in the European Parliament elections in 2004 as Member States.—[Mr. Stringer.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Local Government Finance

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 95) (HC 670), on 2001–02 Special Grant for Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.—[Mr. Stringer.]
	Question agreed to.

Companies

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the Companies (Competent Authority) (Fees) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 502), dated 7th March 2002, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.— [Mr. Stringer.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Companies (Particulars of Usual Residential Address) (Confidentiality Orders) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.—[Mr. Stringer.]
	Question agreed to.

Partnership

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the Limited Liability Partnership (Competent Authority) (Fees) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 503), dated 7th March 2002, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.—[Mr. Stringer.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Limited Liability Partnerships (No. 2) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.—[Mr. Stringer.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Particulars of Usual Residential Address) (Confidentiality Orders) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.—[Mr. Stringer.]
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, on Tuesday 26th March—
	(1) the provisions of the Orders of 20th November 2000 relating to Thursday sittings and meetings of Standing Committees shall apply as if that day were a Thursday; and
	(2) there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall.—[Mr. Stringer.]

PETITION
	 — 
	Asylum Seekers

Peter Luff: It is my privilege to present a petition of 3,577 residents of the parishes of Bishampton and Throckmorton, Pinvin, Wyre Piddle and Hill and Moor, and of other residents of Worcestershire. Some 90.5 per cent. of the residents of Bishampton and 95.1 per cent. of the residents of Throckmorton have signed the petition, which was collected in just over 10 days.
	The petition states that those people are concerned that the proposal by the Home Office to locate an asylum seekers accommodation centre at Throckmorton is not in the interests of the asylum seekers themselves.
	The petition states that that is contrary to national, regional and local planning policy, the site having already been expressly ruled out for any form of residential development in the structure plan approved by a Government inspector.
	The petition states that the centre will overwhelm small local communities and that, following adjacent land use as the largest landfill site in the county and the emergency imposition of the regional foot and mouth burial site for 128,000 animals last April, this is an unacceptable burden on this small corner of rural Worcestershire.
	The petitioners further deeply resent the refusal to allow them the opportunity to have their case judged through the normal democratic planning process as the Home Office has used emergency procedures under special Government regulations.
	The petitioners therefore request
	that the House of Commons urges the Home Secretary to look for more suitable sites for asylum accommodation centres from the perspective of both the asylum seekers and local residents.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

WORKPLACE FATALITIES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stringer.]

Tony Baldry: In 1998, a constituent of mine, Simon Jones, a student at Sussex university, was tragically and traumatically killed after just two hours on his first day working for the Dutch firm Euromin Ltd., at Shoreham docks. I believe that Simon's death and the subsequent acquittal of the company's general manager, James Martell, has made clear fundamental failures of the law when it comes to safety in the workplace. Regardless of the outcome of the court case, I have no doubt that there is a real need for the Government to examine closely the operations of the Crown Prosecution Service, the Health and Safety Executive and the police in cases of deaths at work.
	In Simon's case, we need simply to consider the gulf between the observations made by some of those authorities and the actions that they took. I understand that a now-departed ships agent and sales executive at Euromin wrote to the HSE to say that it would
	"only be a matter of time before someone was killed",
	and that there was "inadequate manning and safety" at the docks. What did the HSE do? Nothing.
	Let us consider the activities of the CPS. I understand that it wrote to Simon Jones's family to say that there was
	"no doubt Euromin employed an unsafe working environment".
	There is no doubt about the words of the CPS: Euromin employed an unsafe working environment.
	Despite there being no doubt about the severe lack of safety at Euromin, what did the CPS do after Simon's death? Nothing. It was not until the third time of asking—not until two High Court judges had told the CPS that it was "irrational" not to prosecute—that the CPS decided that it was
	"in the public interest to prosecute".
	I have no doubt that it is now in the public interest considerably to strengthen the law in relation to deaths at work.
	The death of Simon Jones at work demonstrates existing shortcomings both in the law and in the practices of the agencies that should be most concerned to ensure that everything that can be done to reduce the risk of workplace deaths is done. Sadly, other cases also demonstrate complacency and the slow and seemingly less than committed prosecution policies that currently exist.
	Although I intend to outline several problems, there is one overarching and urgent necessity: every work-related death should be treated as a manslaughter investigation from the outset, until manslaughter can be eliminated. Without that provision, it is clear that the hurdles will remain too high for those who want to prosecute.
	However, any attempt to improve safety at work is undermined when one realises that the HSE is not doing its job of investigating deaths at work. Only 6 per cent. of serious accidents at work are looked into by the HSE, while a mere 10 per cent. of severe injury cases, and amazingly, only 20 per cent. of cases in which death occurs, lead to prosecution. That means that the HSE does not investigate four in five deaths at work. That is of greater concern given the even more staggering fact that the HSE appears to suggest that 70 per cent. of the 25,000 deaths at work since 1995 were the result of management failure. In that case, why have only six cases of corporate manslaughter been brought, and why have only two of them resulted in conviction?
	I am additionally concerned that the HSE may have substantially under-recorded the number of deaths that take place at work. When I wrote to the director general of the HSE on that point, he pretty much conceded that the HSE often has an insufficient idea as to whether an individual is an employee or a member of the public when it initially registers a death in the workplace. That is unacceptable. Indeed, if the HSE is unsure about whether it is recording as members of the public people who are in fact employees, that serves to underline the pathetic rate of corporate manslaughter cases being pursued. I hope that the Government and the HSE will seriously consider implementing proposals to increase the reporting of all deaths in the workplace.
	This specific case, however, raises two wider concerns which relate to the actions of the police and the CPS as well as of the HSE. Those three authorities form the "protocol of liaison" on deaths at work. I shall offer some suggestions that the Government might consider in relation to this protocol and to the CPS and the police, but first I shall focus again on the HSE.
	Currently, there are two categories of offence as regards a work-related death: manslaughter and regulatory offences. Manslaughter requires evidence of gross negligence as against simple negligence for a regulatory offence. That immediately creates a problem as regards corporate accountability. I ask the House to consider the Home Office's recent response to me on that point.
	A letter from the Home Office of 24 October 2001 stated that although the Government intended to legislate, they must
	"ensure that we balance the entitlement of the public to see justice being done and the need to protect corporations that have taken all reasonable precautions from an unjust prosecution".
	However, the letter went on to state that the Government felt that they must also ensure that
	"the emphasis is on the responsibility of the corporation itself, as a legal body, taking responsibility for its actions . . . however, individual officers could still be prosecuted if there was sufficient evidence".
	By distinguishing between manslaughter and regulatory offences in relation to deaths at work, one Government objective is being cancelled out by the other. Surely, on a simple interpretation, logic might suggest that a work-related death through negligence is no different from a gross act of negligence and hence the presumption of corporate manslaughter. Why do the Government feel the need to distinguish between manslaughter and regulatory offences? What is the difference between gross negligence and negligence?
	Although I agree that the HSE's focus should remain largely preventive, it occurs to me that part of the reason for its disappointingly low level of investigation and prosecution is that it is attempting to strike a somewhat false balance. Clearly, that would be easily remedied if all deaths at work were initially treated as manslaughter until proven otherwise. That problem is plainly underscored when one considers the protocol's initial assessment in relation to police investigation. Consider the wording of the introduction to the protocol:
	"the police will conduct an investigation where there is an indication of manslaughter".
	Yet paragraph 1.1 says that a police investigation could be undertaken
	"where the circumstances might justify a charge of manslaughter".
	Even more contradictorily, paragraph 2.1 asserts that that may happen where there is
	"evidence or a suspicion of . . . gross negligence".
	Such inconsistent language in the protocol about what evidence is needed before an investigation is even started will not advance the accountability of businesses, their managers and directors.
	It is now necessary for the Government to introduce legislation so that corporate killing is immediately treated as manslaughter until the evidence demonstrates the contrary; otherwise, if the Government's new protocol retains the distinction between the initial assessment and manslaughter inquiries, there surely needs to be consistency about the degree of evidence before a proper manslaughter inquiry can be commenced.
	In my opinion, evidence that might justify a charge of manslaughter presents far too high a test. It does not even offer the chance for consistency in police investigations. That lack of consistency and its consequence as regards the police attitude towards deaths at work become clearer if one considers the resources made available for the initial investigation.
	In various responses to my letters, the Home Office has made it clear—I quote from a letter dated 15 January 2001—that
	"one of the most important parts of the Protocol is for Chief Constables to appoint Regional Liaison Officers, who should maintain contact with nominated representatives in the CPS and the HSE in the relevant region".
	But it was not necessarily clear that that was the case with Simon Jones's death. For example, it took more than six weeks for the police investigation to begin. Why? I would suggest once more that the inherent weaknesses in the current two-stage process mean that it is not made clear whether the initial assessment itself is an investigation; thus it seems likely that some police forces will not direct into it sufficient resources. Not only is that ambiguity unacceptable, it does not create the accountability to which the Government aspire.
	In fairness, I suspect that the Government believe that the protocol involves more accountability than it does. For instance, the Home Office letter to which I alluded on the line of accountability of police investigation stressed effective working with the HSE, yet how can such work be effective when the HSE itself appears to support my concerns with the current initial assessment under the protocol, given that it observes that
	"in most cases it is unlikely that a manslaughter investigation will commence based solely on an initial assessment of the facts surrounding a fatality"?
	If that is so, and initial assessments only pick up the most transparent cases of manslaughter, the two-stage process must surely have failed, especially if the HSE has failed to refer evidence to the police.
	Furthermore, it seems that the protocol's current process of undertaking an initial assessment may in itself result in unnecessary delay in those cases where a decision is subsequently taken to launch a manslaughter inquiry. Indeed, it would appear that there was a perhaps an inverted occurrence of that scenario with Simon Jones's case. In a letter to the victim's family, the HSE states:
	"I said that the HSE were about to brief Counsel to ensure we had all the necessary evidence . . . however, before this final item of evidence was obtained, the start of the Judicial Review process into Crown Prosecution Service's decision not to take manslaughter prosecutions was announced. This prevented us obtaining this last item of evidence and left us once more in the position of awaiting a decision on manslaughter prosecutions".
	Surely that cannot be effective working, as the Government claim.
	It is clear to me that, if the Government were to introduce legislation so that directors or managers were responsible for deaths at work, the new protocol would create a far clearer line of accountability. Directors are, after all, responsible for employees in all other corporate aspects. Thus two further issues need to be clarified under the current protocol.
	First, there are the continuing concerns over how the criteria are applied by HSE inspectors. The Government chronically under-resource those authorities, yet it is clear that, although the HSE needs to operate within resource limitations, if it were to develop more detailed guidance, such a system would ensure that decisions on whether to investigate would be more rigorously based and more transparent, which would ultimately lead to more consistency. There is also the additional concern about whether the HSE passes evidence to the police as it should.
	Secondly, there are the actions of the police when it comes to evidence gathering. I am told time and again in Home Office responses that police officers—I quote from a letter of 5 December 2001—
	"go through a nationally organised training programme . . . of a very high standard."
	I do not doubt that. However, I doubt the effectiveness of the protocol when it is clear that many police forces are unaware that the protocol even exists.
	I understand that the police are not provided with any training on issues relating to manslaughter in the workplace and on how to conduct a thorough investigation in these circumstances. How can that help those responsible to be accountable? It is perhaps no wonder that in Simon Jones's case the actions of the CPS fell well below what is acceptable. I can only assume that the Government's talk of balance on corporate death and the CPS's action, or lack of action, puts the prevailing defence of the "effective workings" of the protocol on a somewhat false foundation.
	In Simon Jones's case, there was the wrong application of the law and the wrong law was being applied. As a consequence, I am not filled with much confidence when the Government tell me that everything is all right because the CPS will be involved at every stage to ensure that legislation is "fully workable and effective".
	It comes as an insult to the family of Simon Jones when, after its recent Crown court case, Euromin is fined only £50,000 for what clinically has to be described as a corporate death. Once again, it perturbs me that the law is being applied the wrong way round. Surely corporations should be fined if they fail to secure safety, but manslaughter, and hence prison sentences, should be invoked for those directors whose failure on safety results in fatality.
	If that is to happen, the Government need to publish their promised Bill on corporate manslaughter. Yet Parliament is still awaiting a commitment for the timing of such a Bill. If and when there is a Bill, I would ask the Government to consider the following five questions. Will the Bill make clear the line of accountability between the police, the HSE and the CPS? Will the Government ensure that if one or more of these authorities fails to take sufficient action, they will then take action against those authorities? Will the police be given proper training on issues relating to manslaughter in the workplace and on how to conduct a thorough investigation?
	Will further protocols cease with the two-stage process of investigation and initially consider all cases of deaths at work as corporate manslaughter? Ultimately, will corporate directors be held responsible for corporate employees—such responsibility being the most effective deterrent against insufficient safety at work which causes deaths at work?
	I suggest that these five questions would make legislation workable, effective and, above all, balanced. I strongly suggest that the five questions, if answered properly, would in part ensure that, as the Minister concerned at the time told Simon Jones's family in a letter of 20 September 2000:
	"When flagrant health and safety crimes are committed, the case for punitive punishment is unquestionable."
	There are far too many deaths at work and we need to ensure that actions are taken that make deaths at work a crime that does not pay.

Rob Marris: I thank the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) for allowing me time to speak briefly. It is shocking that the number of deaths at work increased last year. This is a timely debate.
	I have a personal interest in this subject because Simon Jones' cousin, Cath, lives in my constituency. Along with other members of his family and many supporters, she and her husband, Ray, have campaigned energetically for justice, both in memory of Simon Jones and for the sake of others.
	I shall focus briefly on some aspects of practice rather than the law itself, which was covered by the hon. Gentlemen. Many changes are needed, and I shall consider four of them.
	In 1998, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Health and Safety Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service developed the protocol to which reference has been made. There is an agreed procedure for liaison between these organisations where there is a work-related death. The protocol is a significant step forward, but we must ensure that the police, the Health and Safety Executive and the CPS are fully trained in this specialist area, preferably through joint training, thus enabling prompt and thorough investigation.
	I echo the hon. Gentleman's call for every work-related death initially to be treated as a manslaughter investigation, until manslaughter can be discounted.
	Incidents should also initially be investigated from an organisational point of view—in other words, what went wrong in the system? Investigations of individuals should be in the context of any organisational failures that are discovered. Prevention based on a change in systems is usually more effective than simply focusing on individual blame. Arrangements for access to fatal accident sites must be clarified to ensure that it is clear who is in overall control and that the police do not deny HSE investigators prompt access to the site on the grounds that it is a possible crime scene. I therefore seek assurances from the Minister on joint training, initial investigation of manslaughter, organisational investigation and site access.

Alan Whitehead: I congratulate the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) on securing this debate; he made a number of important points about deaths at work. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), in a brief contribution, asked a number of important questions which need to discussed in the context of possible future legislation.
	I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government. I am aware of the awful circumstances surrounding the death of Simon Jones; it was a terrible and unnecessary tragedy and my deepest sympathy goes to his family and friends. His death has remained at the forefront of the minds of my colleagues in government as we work on improving health and safety. Too many people are still dying at work. The hon. Member for Banbury suggested that there had been 25,000 deaths at work since 1995. I believe that that was an inadvertent slip; 2,500 people have died at work since 1995. Last year, 295 workers were killed, which is unacceptable. It is a central tenet of health and safety practice that workers should expect to return home in roughly the same condition that they went to work; losing one's life as a result of one's employment is utterly unacceptable.
	I fully recognise the concerns about Simon's death and shall respond to some specific points raised during the debate, particularly the questions at the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech and those asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. We shall certainly look carefully at the issues that the hon. Member for Banbury raised when we formulate proposals for legislation. I shall say more about legislative proposals shortly. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall look carefully at the effect of any changes in the law on those enforcing it. For example, the national training programmes for the police service are reviewed and updated in line with changes to legislation, which are reflected as appropriate in the training that the police service receives. We shall also consider how the changes in the law will affect guidance issued to the police and the existing protocol.
	The hon. Gentleman was critical of the protocol that has existed between the police, the Health and Safety Executive and the Crown Prosecution Service since 1998. It may assist the House if I explain that the protocol is an agreement between the signatories to ensure effective liaison between the organisations when there is a work-related death. It promotes and encourages joint decision making and a co-ordinated approach from investigation to, where appropriate, prosecution before the courts. I stress that the protocol is intended to supplement the operational guidance on the investigation and prosecution of cases by the police, the HSE and the CPS and does not dictate how an incident may be effectively investigated.
	Experience of the operation of the protocol suggests that while it has proved an effective tool on a number of occasions, there is room for improvement. Accordingly, since September last year, a committee has been looking at how the protocol may be developed to address some of the concerns voiced by the hon. Gentleman, such as the approach to the initial investigation. I understand that a public consultation exercise to engage organisations that have had direct experience of the protocol took place between January and the end of February this year. Responses from the exercise will help to inform the review of the protocol. Following the exercise and other considerations, the revised protocol is expected to be introduced this autumn.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether corporate directors would be held responsible. We take the offence of manslaughter extremely seriously. We are always mindful of the need for businesses to operate successfully, but we also believe that companies must operate in a responsible and safety conscious manner. We outlined proposals for the reform of the law on corporate killing in the consultation paper entitled "Reforming the Law on Involuntary Manslaughter: the Government's Proposals".
	Currently, the law requires that if a corporate body is to be found liable for a manslaughter offence, it is necessary to identify a controlling mind, typically a director, who can be proved to have committed the offence. That has made successful prosecution extremely difficult in practice, except in the case of very small undertakings, and has meant that there have been only three successful prosecutions for corporate killing.
	The new offence of corporate killing that we propose seeks to capture conduct that falls far below what can be expected of a reasonable undertaking in the circumstances. The offence does not require the risk to life to be obvious. Instead, all that is required is that the way in which the company's activities are managed or organised fails to ensure the health and safety of its employees. Therefore, the undertaking as a whole is seen to have committed a management failure, even if the cause of the specific death is the act or omission of an individual.
	We fully expect the new legislation to provide a clearer avenue for securing successful prosecutions against undertakings whose standards have fallen far below what could reasonably be expected, and where failure to uphold the standard has in part been responsible for a death. We envisage that the introduction of the new offence will encourage companies that have so far failed to do so to take their health and safety responsibilities much more seriously.
	The hon. Gentleman implied that the HSE does not investigate all deaths at work. I emphasise that that is far from the case, as I shall make clear. The HSE is confident that it is informed about all deaths in the workplace, other than deaths that may be work-related but do not occur in the workplace and are perhaps road-related.
	The HSE's revised enforcement policy statement, which was published on 28 January, states that all work-related deaths reportable to enforcing authorities should receive a site investigation. That has always been the case. Deaths would also be investigated if they were accidents to members of the public on a site where work was taking place. The HSE's published accident figures include deaths to workers and to members of the public which result from work activities.
	Other reported incidents or complaints are selected for investigation according to publicly available criteria. Perhaps I could deal now with the suggestion that the HSE did nothing about Euromin. In fact, Euromin had been visited by, or had other contact with, the HSE in 1994, 1995, 1996 and early 1998. Advice on a number of issues had been given, but no formal enforcement action had been taken.
	The enforcement policy states that if an investigation reveals that prosecution is justified—that is, that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and it is in the public interest—prosecution will go ahead. The aim of the revised enforcement policy is to achieve greater consistency and transparency in decision making on investigation and enforcement. I agree with the hon. Member for Banbury that that is very important.
	The revised enforcement policy aims to ensure that the HSE and local authorities bring to bear the full range of health and safety enforcement powers, including prosecution, to ensure compliance with health and safety law. It has also been designed to achieve an effective balance in what enforcers do, and I support that approach.
	Enforcement, including prosecution and deterrence, is crucial, but not at the expense of promoting voluntary compliance and models of excellence which also have a legitimate call on resources.
	The preventive inspection programme is at the core of the HSE's business and it is always seeking to improve the way in which it carries out this work. Premises are selected for proactive inspection using criteria such as the risk from the processes likely to be taking place, past incident history, standards in the industry and our confidence in management. Only higher risk businesses are inspected.
	We know that resources are an important factor in enabling the HSE to do its job, and that is why we have increased its overall resources. We provided an additional £63 million following the 1998 comprehensive spending review and a further £45 million in December 2000.
	The increases over those three years have allowed for an overall increase in the HSE's staff, and that has enabled the HSE to make more visits and to handle more investigations and complaints. Since the Government took office, the number of HSE prosecutions and formal enforcement notices has increased. Last year, the HSE issued nearly 50 per cent. more improvement and prohibition notices than in 1996-97 and prosecuted nearly 20 per cent. more individual duty holders.
	However, demands on the HSC and the HSE to improve health and safety will always be high and will always outstrip the resources available. That is why the revitalising health and safety initiative, launched in June 2000, is so important. Effective health and safety is about getting duty holders to fulfil their obligations as a matter of course, not just in response to an inspector's visit, and that means working in partnership with stakeholders to achieve long lasting improvements in voluntary compliance. That is not just a paper exercise and I am confident that it will deliver.
	First, targets will be set for the health and safety system for the first time to reduce the incidence of fatal and major injury accidents by 10 per cent., and ill health by 20 per cent. by 2010, with at least half the improvement to be achieved by 2004. The setting of those targets has been a catalyst. It is encouraging to see the private sector committing to delivering targets, which contributes to the national effort. So far, 25 of the traditional industry sectors have done so, with a further eight to follow suit.
	Secondly, the HSC is prioritising and focusing its resources and efforts on areas where major improvements are necessary if the targets are to be met, and it encourages partnership. I am pleased that in many of the revitalising initiatives, industry, employees and the trade unions are involved together.
	I reiterate my sympathy for Simon Jones' family, and I hope that what I have said this evening gives assurances about the Government's commitment to improve health and safety to minimise the risk of further tragedies.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.